For me, sometimes a hard manual is just necessary. But I don't think it's because there's anything better about having a dead tree in my lap. I think it's because we haven't quite gotten the electric metaphor of paper down yet. Instead of imitating the banal, everyday practical thing that paper is, we've gotten a bunch of glitz that promises a lot and delivers little.
Instead of giving a user an easily extensible format that can be quickly and easily changed, we've gotten more and more "tools" to make electronic manuals easier to use. I find that most of the time, the tools end up getting in the way. Even though I can type faster and clearer than I can write, using things like Notes in Adobe Acrobat end up taking longer than simply writing notes in a book because the interface hinders direct interaction with the text itself.
I mean, take for instance Microsoft's failed e-reader program; they tried to capture the metaphor of paper without providing the user any means to touch their paper. Your book was set firmly on the other side of a clunky interface that didn't allow you to change it. It was like when Bill Gates was showing some work by Da Vinci at the Seattle Art Museum--on the other side of a thick block of glass was a barely legible piece of paper that you couldn't get anywhere near. Acrobat has the same problem, it's just that the information is all laminated instead of embedded in a chunk of glass.
I think that SGML overcomes a lot of the shortcomings that electronic manuals intherently have, but the problem is, marking up a text is going to take a lot more time than just using paper; using SGML to make electronic media as extensible as paper is like using a jackhammer to unscrew something.
The heart of the problem is that there really hasn't been a need to take the electronic paper metaphor beyond its current half-baked state. Books still make a lot more money and publishers don't want to lose control of their industry. Those who have tried to extend the metaphor have done so with the aim of protecting the industry as is.
The real thing here is that 80% of the time--even with the broken paper metaphor--you never need a printed manual. And many of the instances where you do need one it's because the information is being presented in a manner which doesn't work within the bounds of the broken paper metaphor; it wants to be printed. Using electronic format in its present state means that an author must present information differently.
I think the presentation of technical information in electronic format is getting better all the time (I'm actually seeing instances where paper "manuals" or quickstart guides are mimicking online presentation and it works well).
This is derived from the idea that all security vulnerabilites are quantitatively the same. In fact, the danger posed by the majority of exploits listed for Open Source software is relatively minor compared to the regular influx of root level exploits that show up for the Windows platform.
Sure, you see a lot of exploits for Open Source software, but the difference is when exploits for Open Source software are found, they are:
a) normally quite limited in their scope. *nix root exploits are relatively rare and are generally harder to take advantage of than their Windows counterparts.
b) patched almost immediatley after the exploit is announced. We see in the world of Windows that it's not uncommon for vulerabilities to be announced and left unpatched for months. (And since you don't have access to the source, you can't do any patching yourself either.)
Don't get me wrong, when it comes down to it, I'd much rather get the best tool for the job. But when it comes to security, Microsoft Windows is not it.
I've always thought this "retraining cost" argument was a ruse.
I mean, what exactly are the retraining costs when the majority of users utilize maybe three applications? On the whole, office workers don't utilize "advanced" features available in the software anyway.
For example: how many secretaries are using Word Styles to author documents? Even though Word Styles are available, and take some amount of training to understand, if they're not being used, why worry about it?
What it boils down to is the applications. If those applications are available, and operate in a similar way, it doesn't matter what platform they are running on. The overhead involved in user training is much ado about nothing.
Now, don't get me wrong, there's a number of reasons why continuing down the Microsoft treadmill could make more sense (for now). But retraining isn't one of them.
The install is one thing, but usability is quite another.
Don't get me wrong, my desktop at home is runs Debian, but anymore, when I need to get something done, I just don't have the time to spend reading a man page, a howto, googling newsgroups, buying an O'reilly book and then getting things running the way I want.
When I want to get things done, I use my Apple laptop.
I hope that Linux will someday get to the point that Mac OS X has (yes, I've used Red Hat 8 and Mandrake 9). Until then, there's no question in my mind what I'll choose.
And as my 6 year old nephew might say, "Peeka-Mac, I choose YOU!"
It's nice to see Apple winning the "top down" revolution. I can only hope, as a sysadmin, that Apple's OS X will continue to make inroads into the corporate sector. It is easy to administer, robust, stable--and best of all, works as advertised.
I don't know how many times I've been burned by Windows products that just don't work right. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with stupid Windows problems and kludge together a solution. I'm tired of wasting my time with the same non-issues over and over again. I know I'm not the only one.
Apple's mistake back in the 90's was to try winning a "bottom up" revolution. Giving their computers to school districts, in theory was a great idea; it produced people who were used to using Apple computers would go buy Apple, or use it at work. Apple made a simple product that worked well, but was stigmatized as a "toy."
It wasn't Microsoft, but rather IBM won that battle by using a "top down" revolution. Appealing to the execs/technophiles in an organization. Making the PC seem more "professional," or technically advanced. Microsoft has been riding on that IBM wave ever since. But they've shot themselves in the foot more times than I can count.
It's nice to see the tables turned: Microsoft's "Jolly Rancher" OS keeps trying to "dumb-down" bad engineering with more annoying wizards, more annoying popups, and more annoying "security" features that just make working with it impossible.
While Microsoft attempts to win a "bottom up" revolution with candy-colors and glitz, Apple has made a real, rock solid OS that can be used by anyone. While Microsoft alienates more and more corporate customers, Apple is selling comparably priced corporate systems to their PC counterparts.
More proof that Microsoft's greatest nemisis is Microsoft.
Anyway, I just wanted to respond to the valid question posed.
I've worked with everything from Debian on SPARC systems to Windows XP and I've never been as productive as I am with my Mac.
Until Mac OS X was released, I laughed at Macs. I wouldn't waste my time with them. With OS X that changed. OS X offers the stability and tools of a robust UNIX environment, as well as the software applications that I needed to stay productive.
Back when I had the time and the inclination to "mess about," building my own was great.
If you've got the time and the inclination to make your PC hardware work (whether that be with Windows, BSD, or Linux) then that's probably the right choice for you.
had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit.
Besides the fact that this is a false statement, I think there's good reason that Clinton didn't use the present administration's bull-in-china-shop diplomacy when it came to Iraq.
You remember Somolia, right?
That's the one where poppy Bush leaves a shit-load of problems for the incoming president.
The incoming president attempts to press onward with the agenda left by the outgoing administration.
Before he can do anything about it, the young president finds out that the "new world order" poppy Bush was trying to force on people of other nations (read 'nation building' -- a practice used by poppy Bush in a number of instances) has burned him.
After having his ass chewed upon for years because poppy Bush screwed up, you think that he could just wildly galavant over to Iraq, and do whatever he wanted? After he took the heat for the bad planning and lack of foresight that poppy Bush had, do you think he'd want to?
I'm sorry, but your logic baffles me.
Oh, and isn't it kind of funny how Rush and the good ol' boys forgot that poppy Bush was responsible for Somolia. Hell, they've been blaming Clinton for everything that's gone wrong for ten years now... Why stop now, right?
Yeah, it's Clinton's fault that Saddam Husein is still in power.
It's Clinton's fault that Bush outright ignored the Clinton administration's warnings about Al Qaeda.
It's Clinton's fault that US citizens are being locked up in military prisons.
It's Clinton's fault that more and more of the world sees the US as an oppressive nation.
The roots of terrorism are in opression. Somolia grew out of a feeling of oppression. Bush's oppression of others for short term political gain will cause the number of terrorists to multiply faster than Al Qaeda ever could have hoped for.
Bush has pissed away the good-will and benevolence of a world united against terrorism. I fear that we'll be paying for his stupidity for the rest of our lives.
I think you're right on; the walls are a kind of metaphor for the defining lines between and around us all.
I guess I just see them as a metaphor for the joint between places, or people rather than a dividing line across any single entity. (Frost once again leaves me with a baffled smile).
Anyway, I don't want to drag this off course for too long. Thanks for the reply. It's been much too long since I've spent time with Robert Frost (let alone talk with someone about a poem).
As a monopoly, Microsoft has a different set of rules that they must run under. That's the short, sweet answer to it.
You yourself have said that everything you listed above are "products" that are "bundled." They are not a part of the operating system. Since other vendors provided products with similar functionality long before Microsoft decided to "bundle" them, Microsoft is breaking antitrust rules. They are trying to extend their monopoly on operating systems into other areas.
I understand, it probably seems unfair. But that's the bed Microsoft has made for itself. They've done everything they could to keep from lying in it, now they're being made to.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I've had a little first hand experience with setting up 802.11b with OS X.2 and Windows XP.
Rendezvous and Ad-hoc networking under XP are two different beasts in my experience. XP buries the functionality behind layers and layers of dialogs, meaning that unless you know it's there, you're not going to use it. For people who know about things like 802.11b that works just fine. For people who think a frame is something that goes around a picture, this just isn't a viable option.
Rendezvous is networking for people who really couldn't care less about networking. They want to get their job done, not mess around with another wizard or twelve-tab dialog box.
Rendezvous is different because it works right out of the box. In my experience, that's all the difference.
Thank you for putting the SEC filing into perspective. Hopefully you have helped people better understand that Microsoft isn't just Office and Windows. But, I have to ask, do you think that the original post is any less relevant?
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even though the original post was over-boisterous and incorrect in it's details, is it any less meaningful? For instance, how much more threaening is Linux today than it was three years ago, or five years ago?
Even though the post was incorrect in its details, the spirit of the post still holds true. Linux is becoming a larger looming problem for Microsoft.
Even though Slashdot may be prone to hyperbole and inaccurate reporting (and yes, FUD), it doesn't mean that the report, or those who released the information are wrong.
There is still something to be gotten from the report itself as well as the (sometimes precious few) insightful comments posted in response.
You go, boy '98. Way to just counter all my arguments with overwhelming evidence.
Sorry little hypocrite, but you'll have to get off of your lazy AC-since-'98 ass and do a little research.
Yes, relatively miniscule number of companies.
How many "dot bombs" (as you oh-so-eloquent partner put it), do you think there were compared to the number of companies which existed before, and still do exist after the hyper inflation of the tech sector of the stock market?
You make your arguments with opinions and use insults to try to give them credibility.
At least, my hypocritical friend, I make an argument and I state my evidence. You, it seems, can't even get that far.
Sorry boy '98, but you're actually going to have to do a little thinking if you want to do more than that lame excuse for a troll that you've wasted my time with.
I have faith in you though--I know you can start thinking.
Please, at least write something worth responding to.
Clue: take some classes. Learn about things like grammar and sentence structure. Even better, go buy yourself some intelligence; what in the hell are you trying to say?
Man you're the perfect representation of the monkeyman constituency. You just don't have a clue other than what they pump in you on Fox News, do you?
Economies "go sour" because there's a general lack of faith in the system, if you'd read the post you're responding to, you might even understand the argument. Economies don't "go sour" because idiots overinflate stock prices. The price of stock, and the failure of a relative miniscule number of companies who didn't have sound business plans didn't drive the economy into recession.
BTW the economy was starting to falter before 2000.
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd say that the economy started faltering before 2001. Clue: that's when monkeyman took office--since you're trying to blame someone else for his problems, you only need to go back before 2001. You attempt to shift blame onto someone who was leaving office three months after the stock market stopped climbing (which is about the same time people realized that monkeyman could, in fact, become president).
Monkeyman's attempt to shift blame onto the administration before him doesn't work because the stock market only inched downward, & probably would have recovered relatively quickly, under the watch of an administration that had the intelligence to deal with complex issues.
Since the monkeyman is more interested in chest beating, and giving tax-breaks to himself, there's really no hope until someone with at least a hint of intelligence takes his place.
Under Clinton, the stock market never came crashing down (as it did around the monkeyman), it simply stopped spiraling upward. Two years later, a second recession looming on the horizon and you idiots still try to blame someone who at least had the intelligence to create the environment in which business flourished, we all had jobs, and the world was at peace.
To bad that monkeyman's big campaign contributors and friends--like those over at Enron--decided that it was better to fill their own pockets.
Yeah, if I was going to write idiotic tripe like that I'd use AC too.
When did the economy start nosediving? After the 2000 elections. Why? Because George the-monkeyman Bush was more interested in himself than the good of everyone. A general lack of confidence in the institutions that we all took for granted came out of those thirty days.
If that suited monkey in the whitehouse had put the good of the people ahead of his own ambitions, he wouldn't have put the whole country into a month long panic about the future of the nation. He would have conceded the race to Gore, because the only decisive victory (in popular votes) was won by Gore.
You idiots got your monkey man up top, and you see how well he's done. Now all you can do is blame Clinton, because monkeyman sure hasn't done anything.
Clue: it's been years since Clinton was around.
Yes, be happy with the wonderful performance by your walking, talking monkey.
Something wrong with the economy? Well, let's cut taxes. It doesn't matter what Allan Greenspan has said--we're going to cut taxes. It doesn't matter that last time we cut taxes it didn't do a damn thing--we're going to cut taxes.
Oh, you've jost lost your job? Well we've cut taxes on dividends... Yeah, thanks president monkeyman, that will sure help put food on the table.
Yeah, you should happy that my children will be paying off monkeyman's free tax-ride for himself and all his campaign contributors. Good job!
Let me give you another clue, you troll: go back to your TV, turn on Fox News and cheer real hard. Over there, no one will disagree with you. monkeyman is great!!! everything is great!!! saddam evil!!!! usa good!!!!!!
If Windows had a native UNIX layer that interfaced with the Windows kernel, then maybe your analogy would actually work. But since there's no real option on a Windows box for using all of the UNIX programs you've come to know and love, it's just not the same.
(Cygwin is a poor pacifier for the real thing. I know, I still have to use it every day. At best, it works like it's supposed to, but much of the time, it's just a waste of time and effort.)
sheldon, if you understood what you were talking about you wouldn't even propose such utter nonsense as reasoning.
Maybe you forgot it, maybe you never knew it, but the Unix paradigm is built around the idea of small, modular peices that work together. That's what a pipe is all about. Microsoft never quite caught on, maybe you didn't either. Sub-tasking complex tasks to sub-applications either means you're limited in versatility or reliability.
Your straw-man Word/Oracle example has absolutely no analog in the Unix world. The example in itself implies failure on the Unix side because Unix works differently than Windows; Unix tools don't rely on heavy-weight, cumbersome applications to do specific tasks. Unix tools rely on small, task-specific programs that work together.
I mean, really sheldon, trying to pipe an Oracle query to Word... can't you think of anything better to do with the magic DOS prompt?
And can you think of any reason--any reason at all--that an administrator would want to pipe a oracle query to something like Word when they have more reliable, open, poratable, extensible ways that they can present the infomrmation in?
Using the shell means that I can not only format my document into a publishable document via LaTeX, I can also automatically create graphs and charts from a shell, I can take those graphs and convert them to a different format, or embed them into the posscript file or PDF I want to output. All this from a single script that takes seconds rather than minutes to run and takes 10% of the system resources required for your COM "script."
In the end, I can take my document and publish it five different ways, have it posted to my web-server and then copied to my machine too, and I can do this all from fifteen thousand miles away.
But of course, you could do this back in Windows 2x, couldn't you...
Good point, I guess I should have better explained what I was trying to say.
Simply, I meant Linux to be more like a Range Rover in that one can actually look at the code, that one can take that code "off road" if they've got the skills and the desire. With Windows, you're stuck with the path the driver wants to take you on--whether you wanted to go that way or not.
It's something like "The Road Ahead," and someone else is going to take you to their vision of the future.
You're right, going from Windows to Linux is making a hard change. I like your automobile metaphor, but I think it's more like going from an SUV to public transit. You can get anywhere on public transit that you can in your car. In many instances it may take you longer to get there, but in many other instances, public transit will provide a more reliable way of getting to your destination in a timely fashion.
An SUV will provide more convenience, but in the end, it is more expensive, more hazardous, ultimately harms us all much more than a full bus does.
An SUV is a depreciating investment that only has a scant few years of use before it must be replaced once again. In the end, and it depends upon a dealer to provide parts, service and to recall and repair parts when there are defects. The dealer will only provide these things as long as it is financially beneficial to them.
With public transit, you've got a fleet of mechanics constantly servicing the machines you depend on. It doesn't cost you any more to have your bus repaired than the daily fare you pay.
An SUV requires a constant and vigilant upkeep by each operator, no matter how ignorant or undeserving of the SUV they may be; each and every other driver on the road depends upon them to take care of their SUV and to drive it safely.
Of course, the public transit metaphor only goes so far. In many ways, using Linux is more like driving a Range Rover or Land Cruiser--going anywhere you want anytime you want--and using Windows is more like riding on a bus with a crazed driver forcing you to sign a forty page agreement before you get on the bus, then telling you to pay at every stop, and threatening you with a gun if you don't.
Anyway, back to the point--the stupid arguments are simply the ones that have already been refuted, and seem to be used over and over again anyway. It's not that there's no reason to use Windows, or that everyone should be using Linux. The thing I think is stupid is when people try aruging that there is no alternative because there's no other platform that provides everything that Windows provides. At that point, it becomes simply a matter of whether you are willing how to do it a different way (which, granted, is an extremely important to people with little spare time).
I think with the event of OS X, the convenience issue has become moot. With Codeweavers doing such a great job of simulating the Windows DLLs, the application issue is becoming moot.
Oh come on, it's okay if you want to use Windows; that's your choice. But at least be honest about why you want to use it.
I'm just tired of the herd telling the rest of us what we have to do to get them to "buy" (i.e. download i.e freeload) Linux. It's bullshit excuses coming from people who just don't want to change, no matter what alternative they're presented with.
It's okay, I understand that it's a hard thing to change your OS. I mean, the buttons work differently and hell, there's not even a "Start" button to tell you where to start.
Really, these are the same kind of lame excuses that are presented every time someone talks about switching to a Mac ("oh, it only got one mouse button!!!!" or, "I can not run all my game on it!!!!" and my personal favorite, "it 2 expensive!!!!"). If you ever talk to one of these people, you'll hear all the same, stupid arguments that have been refuted a thousand times before. You might as well talk to a tape-recorder.
It doesn't matter what you say to these people, what kind of reasons you can give for switching, they will use some kind of see-through excuse for not doing it. And in the end, you know it's just because they're too lazy or too scared to try something different.
I'll put my money on *nix systems pervasive on business desktop systems by the end of the decade. I'll buy you a beer if Microsoft doesn't hold a place somewhat similar to Novell (hell, I'll buy a round for everyone if they do). We'll all remember Microsoft simply as another legacy of bad long-term business decisions made for the sake of short-term growth.
After the herd starts using it at work, becomes comfortable with it, and develops a *nix habit will regular people start seeking out *nix systems for home use.
Yeah, macs are about as vulnerable as FreeBSD and Linux.
And we've all seen how many virii have been written for them.
At best, the parent is a lame troll. More likely though, just some AC stupid enough to believe that everyone engineers software just as poorly as Microsoft.
Let's see, how many vulnerabilities have been found for OS X in the last two years (hint: I can count them on a hand)? How many of them were due to piss poor planning by Microsoft (hint: It's over 60%)?
Slashdot Mirror
For me, sometimes a hard manual is just necessary. But I don't think it's because there's anything better about having a dead tree in my lap. I think it's because we haven't quite gotten the electric metaphor of paper down yet. Instead of imitating the banal, everyday practical thing that paper is, we've gotten a bunch of glitz that promises a lot and delivers little.
Instead of giving a user an easily extensible format that can be quickly and easily changed, we've gotten more and more "tools" to make electronic manuals easier to use. I find that most of the time, the tools end up getting in the way. Even though I can type faster and clearer than I can write, using things like Notes in Adobe Acrobat end up taking longer than simply writing notes in a book because the interface hinders direct interaction with the text itself.
I mean, take for instance Microsoft's failed e-reader program; they tried to capture the metaphor of paper without providing the user any means to touch their paper. Your book was set firmly on the other side of a clunky interface that didn't allow you to change it. It was like when Bill Gates was showing some work by Da Vinci at the Seattle Art Museum--on the other side of a thick block of glass was a barely legible piece of paper that you couldn't get anywhere near. Acrobat has the same problem, it's just that the information is all laminated instead of embedded in a chunk of glass.
I think that SGML overcomes a lot of the shortcomings that electronic manuals intherently have, but the problem is, marking up a text is going to take a lot more time than just using paper; using SGML to make electronic media as extensible as paper is like using a jackhammer to unscrew something.
The heart of the problem is that there really hasn't been a need to take the electronic paper metaphor beyond its current half-baked state. Books still make a lot more money and publishers don't want to lose control of their industry. Those who have tried to extend the metaphor have done so with the aim of protecting the industry as is.
The real thing here is that 80% of the time--even with the broken paper metaphor--you never need a printed manual. And many of the instances where you do need one it's because the information is being presented in a manner which doesn't work within the bounds of the broken paper metaphor; it wants to be printed. Using electronic format in its present state means that an author must present information differently.
I think the presentation of technical information in electronic format is getting better all the time (I'm actually seeing instances where paper "manuals" or quickstart guides are mimicking online presentation and it works well).
For those others, the metaphor
Sure, you see a lot of exploits for Open Source software, but the difference is when exploits for Open Source software are found, they are:
- a) normally quite limited in their scope. *nix root exploits are relatively rare and are generally harder to take advantage of than their Windows counterparts.
Don't get me wrong, when it comes down to it, I'd much rather get the best tool for the job. But when it comes to security, Microsoft Windows is not it.b) patched almost immediatley after the exploit is announced. We see in the world of Windows that it's not uncommon for vulerabilities to be announced and left unpatched for months. (And since you don't have access to the source, you can't do any patching yourself either.)
I've always thought this "retraining cost" argument was a ruse.
I mean, what exactly are the retraining costs when the majority of users utilize maybe three applications? On the whole, office workers don't utilize "advanced" features available in the software anyway.
For example: how many secretaries are using Word Styles to author documents? Even though Word Styles are available, and take some amount of training to understand, if they're not being used, why worry about it?
What it boils down to is the applications. If those applications are available, and operate in a similar way, it doesn't matter what platform they are running on. The overhead involved in user training is much ado about nothing.
Now, don't get me wrong, there's a number of reasons why continuing down the Microsoft treadmill could make more sense (for now). But retraining isn't one of them.
Well, I'm looking at this as a good thing.
If SCO actually had a leg to stand on, I'd feel differently. But since this is a cross-court buzzer throw at the basket, I'm not too worried.
God, anymore I wish it were funny.
The install is one thing, but usability is quite another.
Don't get me wrong, my desktop at home is runs Debian, but anymore, when I need to get something done, I just don't have the time to spend reading a man page, a howto, googling newsgroups, buying an O'reilly book and then getting things running the way I want.
When I want to get things done, I use my Apple laptop.
I hope that Linux will someday get to the point that Mac OS X has (yes, I've used Red Hat 8 and Mandrake 9). Until then, there's no question in my mind what I'll choose.
And as my 6 year old nephew might say, "Peeka-Mac, I choose YOU!"
It's nice to see Apple winning the "top down" revolution. I can only hope, as a sysadmin, that Apple's OS X will continue to make inroads into the corporate sector. It is easy to administer, robust, stable--and best of all, works as advertised.
I don't know how many times I've been burned by Windows products that just don't work right. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with stupid Windows problems and kludge together a solution. I'm tired of wasting my time with the same non-issues over and over again. I know I'm not the only one.
Apple's mistake back in the 90's was to try winning a "bottom up" revolution. Giving their computers to school districts, in theory was a great idea; it produced people who were used to using Apple computers would go buy Apple, or use it at work. Apple made a simple product that worked well, but was stigmatized as a "toy."
It wasn't Microsoft, but rather IBM won that battle by using a "top down" revolution. Appealing to the execs/technophiles in an organization. Making the PC seem more "professional," or technically advanced. Microsoft has been riding on that IBM wave ever since. But they've shot themselves in the foot more times than I can count.
It's nice to see the tables turned: Microsoft's "Jolly Rancher" OS keeps trying to "dumb-down" bad engineering with more annoying wizards, more annoying popups, and more annoying "security" features that just make working with it impossible.
While Microsoft attempts to win a "bottom up" revolution with candy-colors and glitz, Apple has made a real, rock solid OS that can be used by anyone. While Microsoft alienates more and more corporate customers, Apple is selling comparably priced corporate systems to their PC counterparts.
More proof that Microsoft's greatest nemisis is Microsoft.
Damn, and I had mod points earlier today.
Anyway, I just wanted to respond to the valid question posed.
I've worked with everything from Debian on SPARC systems to Windows XP and I've never been as productive as I am with my Mac.
Until Mac OS X was released, I laughed at Macs. I wouldn't waste my time with them. With OS X that changed. OS X offers the stability and tools of a robust UNIX environment, as well as the software applications that I needed to stay productive.
Back when I had the time and the inclination to "mess about," building my own was great.
If you've got the time and the inclination to make your PC hardware work (whether that be with Windows, BSD, or Linux) then that's probably the right choice for you.
When you're ready to get work done, look at Macs.
You remember Somolia, right?
That's the one where poppy Bush leaves a shit-load of problems for the incoming president.
The incoming president attempts to press onward with the agenda left by the outgoing administration.
Before he can do anything about it, the young president finds out that the "new world order" poppy Bush was trying to force on people of other nations (read 'nation building' -- a practice used by poppy Bush in a number of instances) has burned him.
After having his ass chewed upon for years because poppy Bush screwed up, you think that he could just wildly galavant over to Iraq, and do whatever he wanted? After he took the heat for the bad planning and lack of foresight that poppy Bush had, do you think he'd want to?
I'm sorry, but your logic baffles me.
Oh, and isn't it kind of funny how Rush and the good ol' boys forgot that poppy Bush was responsible for Somolia. Hell, they've been blaming Clinton for everything that's gone wrong for ten years now... Why stop now, right?
Yeah, it's Clinton's fault that Saddam Husein is still in power.
It's Clinton's fault that Bush outright ignored the Clinton administration's warnings about Al Qaeda.
It's Clinton's fault that US citizens are being locked up in military prisons.
It's Clinton's fault that more and more of the world sees the US as an oppressive nation.
The roots of terrorism are in opression. Somolia grew out of a feeling of oppression. Bush's oppression of others for short term political gain will cause the number of terrorists to multiply faster than Al Qaeda ever could have hoped for.
Bush has pissed away the good-will and benevolence of a world united against terrorism. I fear that we'll be paying for his stupidity for the rest of our lives.
I think you're right on; the walls are a kind of metaphor for the defining lines between and around us all.
I guess I just see them as a metaphor for the joint between places, or people rather than a dividing line across any single entity. (Frost once again leaves me with a baffled smile).
Anyway, I don't want to drag this off course for too long. Thanks for the reply. It's been much too long since I've spent time with Robert Frost (let alone talk with someone about a poem).
Hmm..
I've always interpreted "Mending Wall" (the Robert Frost poem you're referring to) as completely the opposite.
Good fences make good neighbors because they bring neighbors together.
A little OT, but I know, but still relevant
As a monopoly, Microsoft has a different set of rules that they must run under. That's the short, sweet answer to it.
You yourself have said that everything you listed above are "products" that are "bundled." They are not a part of the operating system. Since other vendors provided products with similar functionality long before Microsoft decided to "bundle" them, Microsoft is breaking antitrust rules. They are trying to extend their monopoly on operating systems into other areas.
I understand, it probably seems unfair. But that's the bed Microsoft has made for itself. They've done everything they could to keep from lying in it, now they're being made to.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I've had a little first hand experience with setting up 802.11b with OS X.2 and Windows XP.
Rendezvous and Ad-hoc networking under XP are two different beasts in my experience. XP buries the functionality behind layers and layers of dialogs, meaning that unless you know it's there, you're not going to use it. For people who know about things like 802.11b that works just fine. For people who think a frame is something that goes around a picture, this just isn't a viable option.
Rendezvous is networking for people who really couldn't care less about networking. They want to get their job done, not mess around with another wizard or twelve-tab dialog box.
Rendezvous is different because it works right out of the box. In my experience, that's all the difference.
Thank you for your insigtful post.
Thank you for putting the SEC filing into perspective. Hopefully you have helped people better understand that Microsoft isn't just Office and Windows. But, I have to ask, do you think that the original post is any less relevant?
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even though the original post was over-boisterous and incorrect in it's details, is it any less meaningful? For instance, how much more threaening is Linux today than it was three years ago, or five years ago?
Even though the post was incorrect in its details, the spirit of the post still holds true. Linux is becoming a larger looming problem for Microsoft.
Even though Slashdot may be prone to hyperbole and inaccurate reporting (and yes, FUD), it doesn't mean that the report, or those who released the information are wrong.
There is still something to be gotten from the report itself as well as the (sometimes precious few) insightful comments posted in response.
Aww, isn't that sweet. You like that picture.
You're smart enough to type "tres@europe.com" into google.
So.
Is that supposed to mean something other than you're an obsessive freak?
Who gives a rats ass who I am or where I went to college?
Go outside and get yourself a life.
And that link... Is that supposed to counter the arguments made in the other posts--because if it is, you're even more sad than I thought you were.
So, if that's you boy '98, keep on trying. You've almost got something worth writing about.
Sorry little hypocrite, but you'll have to get off of your lazy AC-since-'98 ass and do a little research.
Yes, relatively miniscule number of companies.
How many "dot bombs" (as you oh-so-eloquent partner put it), do you think there were compared to the number of companies which existed before, and still do exist after the hyper inflation of the tech sector of the stock market?
At least, my hypocritical friend, I make an argument and I state my evidence. You, it seems, can't even get that far.Sorry boy '98, but you're actually going to have to do a little thinking if you want to do more than that lame excuse for a troll that you've wasted my time with.
I have faith in you though--I know you can start thinking.
Please, at least write something worth responding to.
Man you're the perfect representation of the monkeyman constituency. You just don't have a clue other than what they pump in you on Fox News, do you?
Economies "go sour" because there's a general lack of faith in the system, if you'd read the post you're responding to, you might even understand the argument. Economies don't "go sour" because idiots overinflate stock prices. The price of stock, and the failure of a relative miniscule number of companies who didn't have sound business plans didn't drive the economy into recession.
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd say that the economy started faltering before 2001. Clue: that's when monkeyman took office--since you're trying to blame someone else for his problems, you only need to go back before 2001. You attempt to shift blame onto someone who was leaving office three months after the stock market stopped climbing (which is about the same time people realized that monkeyman could, in fact, become president).Monkeyman's attempt to shift blame onto the administration before him doesn't work because the stock market only inched downward, & probably would have recovered relatively quickly, under the watch of an administration that had the intelligence to deal with complex issues.
Since the monkeyman is more interested in chest beating, and giving tax-breaks to himself, there's really no hope until someone with at least a hint of intelligence takes his place.
Under Clinton, the stock market never came crashing down (as it did around the monkeyman), it simply stopped spiraling upward. Two years later, a second recession looming on the horizon and you idiots still try to blame someone who at least had the intelligence to create the environment in which business flourished, we all had jobs, and the world was at peace.
To bad that monkeyman's big campaign contributors and friends--like those over at Enron--decided that it was better to fill their own pockets.
Yeah, if I was going to write idiotic tripe like that I'd use AC too.
When did the economy start nosediving? After the 2000 elections. Why? Because George the-monkeyman Bush was more interested in himself than the good of everyone. A general lack of confidence in the institutions that we all took for granted came out of those thirty days.
If that suited monkey in the whitehouse had put the good of the people ahead of his own ambitions, he wouldn't have put the whole country into a month long panic about the future of the nation. He would have conceded the race to Gore, because the only decisive victory (in popular votes) was won by Gore.
You idiots got your monkey man up top, and you see how well he's done. Now all you can do is blame Clinton, because monkeyman sure hasn't done anything.
Clue: it's been years since Clinton was around.
Yes, be happy with the wonderful performance by your walking, talking monkey.
Something wrong with the economy? Well, let's cut taxes. It doesn't matter what Allan Greenspan has said--we're going to cut taxes. It doesn't matter that last time we cut taxes it didn't do a damn thing--we're going to cut taxes.
Oh, you've jost lost your job? Well we've cut taxes on dividends... Yeah, thanks president monkeyman, that will sure help put food on the table.
Yeah, you should happy that my children will be paying off monkeyman's free tax-ride for himself and all his campaign contributors. Good job!
Let me give you another clue, you troll: go back to your TV, turn on Fox News and cheer real hard. Over there, no one will disagree with you. monkeyman is great!!! everything is great!!! saddam evil!!!! usa good!!!!!!
That's all you fools worry about anyway, right?
SAGE (The Systems Administrator Guild) has a certification that's based upon general concepts, rather than the fill-in-the-blank style cert exams.
If Windows had a native UNIX layer that interfaced with the Windows kernel, then maybe your analogy would actually work. But since there's no real option on a Windows box for using all of the UNIX programs you've come to know and love, it's just not the same.
(Cygwin is a poor pacifier for the real thing. I know, I still have to use it every day. At best, it works like it's supposed to, but much of the time, it's just a waste of time and effort.)
sheldon, if you understood what you were talking about you wouldn't even propose such utter nonsense as reasoning.
Maybe you forgot it, maybe you never knew it, but the Unix paradigm is built around the idea of small, modular peices that work together. That's what a pipe is all about. Microsoft never quite caught on, maybe you didn't either. Sub-tasking complex tasks to sub-applications either means you're limited in versatility or reliability.
Your straw-man Word/Oracle example has absolutely no analog in the Unix world. The example in itself implies failure on the Unix side because Unix works differently than Windows; Unix tools don't rely on heavy-weight, cumbersome applications to do specific tasks. Unix tools rely on small, task-specific programs that work together.
I mean, really sheldon, trying to pipe an Oracle query to Word... can't you think of anything better to do with the magic DOS prompt?
And can you think of any reason--any reason at all--that an administrator would want to pipe a oracle query to something like Word when they have more reliable, open, poratable, extensible ways that they can present the infomrmation in?
Using the shell means that I can not only format my document into a publishable document via LaTeX, I can also automatically create graphs and charts from a shell, I can take those graphs and convert them to a different format, or embed them into the posscript file or PDF I want to output. All this from a single script that takes seconds rather than minutes to run and takes 10% of the system resources required for your COM "script."
In the end, I can take my document and publish it five different ways, have it posted to my web-server and then copied to my machine too, and I can do this all from fifteen thousand miles away.
But of course, you could do this back in Windows 2x, couldn't you...
Yeah, right.
Good point, I guess I should have better explained what I was trying to say.
Simply, I meant Linux to be more like a Range Rover in that one can actually look at the code, that one can take that code "off road" if they've got the skills and the desire. With Windows, you're stuck with the path the driver wants to take you on--whether you wanted to go that way or not.
It's something like "The Road Ahead," and someone else is going to take you to their vision of the future.
Troll, eh?
Well that's a first.
You're right, going from Windows to Linux is making a hard change. I like your automobile metaphor, but I think it's more like going from an SUV to public transit. You can get anywhere on public transit that you can in your car. In many instances it may take you longer to get there, but in many other instances, public transit will provide a more reliable way of getting to your destination in a timely fashion.
An SUV will provide more convenience, but in the end, it is more expensive, more hazardous, ultimately harms us all much more than a full bus does.
An SUV is a depreciating investment that only has a scant few years of use before it must be replaced once again. In the end, and it depends upon a dealer to provide parts, service and to recall and repair parts when there are defects. The dealer will only provide these things as long as it is financially beneficial to them.
With public transit, you've got a fleet of mechanics constantly servicing the machines you depend on. It doesn't cost you any more to have your bus repaired than the daily fare you pay.
An SUV requires a constant and vigilant upkeep by each operator, no matter how ignorant or undeserving of the SUV they may be; each and every other driver on the road depends upon them to take care of their SUV and to drive it safely.
Of course, the public transit metaphor only goes so far. In many ways, using Linux is more like driving a Range Rover or Land Cruiser--going anywhere you want anytime you want--and using Windows is more like riding on a bus with a crazed driver forcing you to sign a forty page agreement before you get on the bus, then telling you to pay at every stop, and threatening you with a gun if you don't.
Anyway, back to the point--the stupid arguments are simply the ones that have already been refuted, and seem to be used over and over again anyway. It's not that there's no reason to use Windows, or that everyone should be using Linux. The thing I think is stupid is when people try aruging that there is no alternative because there's no other platform that provides everything that Windows provides. At that point, it becomes simply a matter of whether you are willing how to do it a different way (which, granted, is an extremely important to people with little spare time).
I think with the event of OS X, the convenience issue has become moot. With Codeweavers doing such a great job of simulating the Windows DLLs, the application issue is becoming moot.
Oh come on, it's okay if you want to use Windows; that's your choice. But at least be honest about why you want to use it.
I'm just tired of the herd telling the rest of us what we have to do to get them to "buy" (i.e. download i.e freeload) Linux. It's bullshit excuses coming from people who just don't want to change, no matter what alternative they're presented with.
It's okay, I understand that it's a hard thing to change your OS. I mean, the buttons work differently and hell, there's not even a "Start" button to tell you where to start.
Really, these are the same kind of lame excuses that are presented every time someone talks about switching to a Mac ("oh, it only got one mouse button!!!!" or, "I can not run all my game on it!!!!" and my personal favorite, "it 2 expensive!!!!"). If you ever talk to one of these people, you'll hear all the same, stupid arguments that have been refuted a thousand times before. You might as well talk to a tape-recorder.
It doesn't matter what you say to these people, what kind of reasons you can give for switching, they will use some kind of see-through excuse for not doing it. And in the end, you know it's just because they're too lazy or too scared to try something different.
I'll put my money on *nix systems pervasive on business desktop systems by the end of the decade. I'll buy you a beer if Microsoft doesn't hold a place somewhat similar to Novell (hell, I'll buy a round for everyone if they do). We'll all remember Microsoft simply as another legacy of bad long-term business decisions made for the sake of short-term growth.
After the herd starts using it at work, becomes comfortable with it, and develops a *nix habit will regular people start seeking out *nix systems for home use.
Yeah, macs are about as vulnerable as FreeBSD and Linux.
And we've all seen how many virii have been written for them.
At best, the parent is a lame troll. More likely though, just some AC stupid enough to believe that everyone engineers software just as poorly as Microsoft.
Let's see, how many vulnerabilities have been found for OS X in the last two years (hint: I can count them on a hand)? How many of them were due to piss poor planning by Microsoft (hint: It's over 60%)?