There's nothing illegal about changing your/etc/hosts file. There's nothing illegal about setting up a WebDAV server for yourself.
This isn't illegal. But try advertising a public iDisk server, or try redistributing Apple's Backup utility & you'll probably be needing a lawyer.
Apple may be quick about protecting a "look and feel," but to keep Microsoft from "innovating" them any more, I think they have every right. This has been around for months, been advertised on MacSlash & is still running strong.
Since I do have access to OS X, I thought I'd just add a little real data to the above post. Here's what my memory happens to look like at this moment (top -u):
129 bucks buys an extra TiBook battery which lasts five hours (yep, just like the iBook does). And yes, you can hot-swap batteries on your TiBook.
Having a portable power source is cool for a lot of reasons (think peripherals), but it doesn't fill a PowerBook or iBook shortfall; when it comes to portables, PCs can't touch the Mac.
There are organizations that do exactly what you've outlined before; they take old hardware and give it to needing families.
The organization that does this in Seattle doesn't accept 386 or 486 generation machines anymore. It's just too much trouble.
By the way, these organizations have been aggressively harrassed by legal teams representing the copyright holder of Windows 95 for not having all the original media with every single computer they give out. So, don't think because it's old, it doesn't need to have a license.
Really, I've thought about this one long and hard. It's not that I like gratuitous waste. It's not that I think these machines shouldn't be used where they can be used. It's just that putting an old ready-to-break-down, no-support-or-warranty-available machine in some neophyte's home is going to cost them more time and cause them more trouble than simply going to the public library, or going to their school's computer lab.
These computers could do very well as terminal servers, where a support staff can take good care of them.
Hey, I said "pseudo liberal bullshit." It may not be much to you, but in my book there's a big difference.
In a perfect world, we can all pretend that this would be a fitting place for our old computers to end up. But what happens when that 800MB hard drive stops working? Where are they going to get another one and who is going to install it?
Who is going to give them the licenses they need to run the proprietary software you now prescribe?
Who is going to pay for the phone line, for the electricity and the ISP charges so that their computer can now browse the few sites that Netscape 2.0 can view?
The point still remains: it's a dream. It's like saying, "let them eat computers." There's a hell of a lot more that needs to happen than you dropping your old PC off at Ma & Pa Poorfolk's trailer & telling them they are now liberated.
Truly, I think your idea admirable, but the point I'm trying to make (& it looks that I didn't do very well) is that without the skills already in place, these computers are of little use.
You assume that people who can't afford an 8 year old ebay system would actually derive some kind of utility from them.
Bullshit, I says; 3 reasons:
1. People don't need computers. People need food, water, shelter and family.
2. Try to run Mandrake 9 or Red Hat 8 on these systems--it just won't work. Try to run an older distribution on them, people just won't know how to use the computer.
3. You need to organize some way of getting these computers to the people who need them instead of making some grandstand bullshit critique of other people. I'm sure if it came down to donating the computer or using it for a punching-bag, there would be no question where the computer would go. But you aren't organizing, are you? Ultimately, things like this can raise money for people to use in more meaningful ways, like a fundraiser to buy food for a family. But to say that the computers themselves have an implicit value is complete bullshit.
Average people need solutions to their problems, not more problems to deal with. They don't need to spend months learning how to use their computer before they can use it. They don't need to deal with headache upon headache trying to get their computer to run right.
This "Let them eat computers" pseudo-liberal bullshit doesn't do anyone any good. Unless you're willing to give up a couple of years of your life to teach these people how to run Red Hat 5, OpenBSD, or Debian Linux, these old computers aren't going to do them any good.
I mean, really--do you really expect people to derive some kind of monetary income from having one of these machines? Do you really think that it's going to liberate them, or bring them something they need? If they want to compile any of the major software products for Linux, they'll be waiting days.
I don't mean to flame here, if you're working on a way for these computers to be useful (other than as terminal servers) then great, I'll eat every word here.
Your argument reminds me a lot of my mother telling me, "Eat all the brussel sprouts on your plate, for people in Africa are starving."
If you want to split hairs, no, the statement isn't accurate.
But the spirit of the words remains true. If Microsoft provided something that people were happy with, there wouldn't be much more Linux than Linus could put together himself.
Call me crazy, but I just don't know why Linux and Windows always have to compete for the same space.
Ok, I'll call you crazy. Linux doesn't operate separate of Windows. Microsoft has been trying to dominate the server market like they did the desktop market for years. Because there were always better quality choices available, Microsoft could only break in on the low-end. Linux competes for the same low-end business servers that Microsoft has made such successful inroads at.
RSS is a much easier format to use, and there's already much easier, much better tools like Slashdock that take advantage of RSS without being unweildy (as this seems to be).
What was wrong with the old "Add/Remove Programs?"
Everything is registered there.
Why can't they use the Registry entries for the current default browser?
Why do they have to change the ground-rules, yet again, in order for programs to work?
Why make everyone--both creators and consumers--work to do what Microsoft was supposed to do itself?
That's a sad excuse for implementation of the agreement, and it's a harbinger of things to come: Microsoft will implement the terms of the agreement in any way that will prove to benefit Microsoft.
If you haven't paid for a Mandrake subscription, the Mandrake download page requires you to a)pay, or b)lie about paying. That's all. All they've done is remind you that you are abusing the system.
There's nothing that keeps you from lying but your own conscience.
The system works, not because programmers give away their code for free, but because they give it away so other programmers can help them improve it. It's an effort of a community. It's a giving culture that depends upon others giving back. The problem is, that most of the people who are coming into the fold these days have nothing that they can give back in terms of time or skills. They will be using the software, nothing more. The only thing they can give back is money.
But when they don't even do that, the system is bound to break.
And while you're speaking of Gentoo Linux, doesn't Daniel Robbins, creator of Gentoo, have a wife and child he needs to feed?
The little guys may not be in it for the money, but there are plenty of wives and children that do need to eat.
Freeloaders are the guys who don't give back time, code or money. Mandrake gives back all three. I'd say that makes them a pretty good community member.
I don't know how long it may have taken a genius like you, but it took all of two seconds to figure out that, yes I can download, and no, I don't have to pay for it.
What do you think that Mandrake is supposed to let you download without knowing that people's livelihoods rely on your payment? Do you think they should take you out to dinner too?
For someone who wants to USE their computer, Mandrake has the best distribution out there. There's a small learning curve compared to your other "high performance" Linux distros. They should get paid for that, or at least you should acknowledge that yes, you do want to take from the mouths of the people that put it together.
Mandrake sells Free software. They've held up to their end of the bargain. Schmucks like you who'd prefer to i-opener Mandrake and then bitch when they make you think about it should just go back to downloading your Warezed OS of choice and leave the good-guys alone.
I for one appreciate the value added by Mandrake. I appreciate that they are trying to protect the interests of the company by letting freeloaders^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H downloaders know that they are, in fact, abusing the system upon which they rely.
You schmucks should go back to Warez; give the little guys a chance before you i-opener them into oblivion.
LaunchBar takes keyboard support to a whole new level.
You can't do anything like this in the windows UI. And although windows keyboard shortcuts will give you the ability to arrow your way through the start-menu, just use LaunchBar once, and you'll see that Windows' solution was good in Windows 3.0, but not anymore.
Granted, Microsoft has done some awesome things with keyboard support (I love context-sensitive help). And you're right, in OS X, some program menu tasks I can't do any other way but a mouse. But when it comes to typing Alt+F and arrowing my way through the menus, it's really not getting me any improvement in speed or functionality. I don't miss it at all.
If we're talking about OS X, I think its a moot point--I can close dialog boxes from the keyboard. I can rename files in the Finder from the keyboard by simply hitting RETURN (try doing that in Windows Explorer). And I can open any application or document on my system simply by holding down Apple+spacebar and typing in the first couple letters in its name.
LaunchBar is truly the most innovative program I have had the pleasure to work with for years. It brings the speed of the shell into the GUI. And like tab completion in the shell, once you have it, you never want to go back.
If you're concerned about making pretty kitty clipart on your self-printed letterhead, Word is for you.
You can rot trying to make Word work. It doesn't bother me.
Just don't pretend like you actually know something. Don't pretend that 99% of people are as stupid and lazy as you are.
With each successive post, you show how little you actually know about writing, about desktop publishing, about creating books & about computers in general.
It's just so goddamn frustrating to read posts like this. People who don't have to work with Word have no idea how much time, frustration, effort and hair have been lost because of it.
These are the same kind of people who were convinced by Microsoft marketing that Word was the right tool for everything; they were the bosses proclaimed that all work would be converted to Word. They were the same people who took years to finally recognize that they had been suckered.
I mean jeezus, you make it sound like I should be saying, "Oh that rascally Word has gone and changed my four-hundred page document again." For people who have actually had to work with it, Wordisms aren't something you can just laugh off or "empathise" with.
Empathize?
I'm supposed to empathize when Word destroys weeks of work?
Empathize?
What kind of tripe is that? And better yet, how does it get modded up to +5?
I'm supposed to laugh it off when word (bless it) wastes another of my weekends while I do the same work again so a client can actually open the document on their version of Word?
No, I'm sorry, you can't undo the damage that Word helpfully (bless it) does to your job and to your free time with Ctrl+Z.
And I'm sorry to say it, your post isn't in defense of Mirosoft; its in defense of the things you know--keeping the things you're comfortable with. Even though they don't work.
Your post is in defense of laziness.
Nothing more.
WordPerfect has advanced features, but that doesn't make it less "friendly" or usable than Word is. You can use WordPerfect in the same way that you do your rascally Word, but you won't. A good tool will go as far as you can take it, but obviously, you don't need to go too far.
So yeah, if you're concerned about making pretty kitty clipart on your self-printed letterhead, Word is for you.
Apollogies if my last post was too terse, or "bizarre." I didn't have much time to elucidate on the ideas.
The reason I state that a domain isn't for everyone is that not everyone can afford it.
This is a part of the process of deploying a Windows platform network: Install a domain. Whether you agree with it or not, it is the recommended practice, so you can't fault them when you don't follow it.
The point I'm making is that one shouldn't have to decide between a)inferior corporate networking or b)overpriced software. If you need a Domain, you shouldn't have to settle with a Workgroup because Microft didn't make Domains available in your software product. You should be able to customize your software to meet your needs, from start to finish. You shouldn't have to spend thousands more just to make something that finally works the way you wanted it to.
One should be able to have the server available out of the box (should they want it), or any number of possible installations (including workstation with full office suite).
Sounds crazy? Sounds Linux.
Crying that they don't make one master one-sized-fits-all install is silly.
You're right, it's silly to make a one-size fit's all install, and that's exactly what Microoft does. I'm arguing quite the opposite. The Windows installation is not flexible enough; it doesn't give the user the ability to do anything more than install the basic bare-bones software that they bought. You should be able to decide whether you want to install NT Server or NT workstation (allong with the other software that Micosft sells separately). You should get that choice for the price of the operating environment you bought.
The mrosoft gestalt is based upon the idea that one buys the base model and then buys more and pays more and spends more in order to reach what they need. As a contrast, let me use the FreeBSD model; one can configure the same installation of FreeBSD to be a secure Internet server, or to be a desktop operating system. It's up to the installer to decide what they want to do with the machine, not the committers, nor anyone else associated with the FreeBSD project. This is the flexibility that Miosoft products can not afford to have. This is the one size fits all that I'm crying about.
Microsoft makes the installation of an office network granular...
I beg to differ. There is no granularity. What is the difference between the Windows 2000 server that I install at home and the one that you install to be a domain controller on your 3000 node network? Nothing. You can choose from the vast array of icrosoft services that you want to buy for your "modular" server, but there is nothig modular about the server.
If you're in setting up computers for an office environment then the cost of a "MCSE Training Kit" should be TRIVIAL (and if it seems expensive then you're cutting corners in the wrong places)
My friend, it sounds as if you've led a fairly luxurious life up in the corporate cathedral. There's no business in the world that doesn't want to do things right, but the way that Microt sets things up, they need to make hard decisions between capital assets and depreciating investments of software and training of a high turnover workforce. And I'm sure there are a lot of admins, who, if they could afford the time and money, might pay for a MCSE Training Kit. The micosft model doesn't cater to these people. They don't have enough money to buy the complete product.
Online newsgroups are an invaluble resource for those who do RTFM, and even for those who don't. I have never been a part of, nor come across an online newsgroup which was full of questions whose only reply was RTFM. For both the FreeBSD project and Linux, there are dedicated news newsgroups and mail lists who are staffed by people willing to do nothing but anwer new users' questions.
And as to the idea that Microft documentation is superior to the documentation produced by the Linux community, I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether a document is formatted better doesn't make it better documentation.
I spend my days around people that devote themselves to writing "good documentation." I have been at meetings for organizations which devote themselves to writing "good documentation," but all they end up worrying about is following the Microsoft Manual of Style. Most of the documentation "experts" I've had the opportunity to be around are more concerned with statement uniformity, with fonts and with orphaned lines than they are about producing good content. And I'd say this holds true for most of the Microsoft Press documentation that I've had the opportunity to read.
The difference is that the documentation for Linux programs, although it is terse, is directly related to the subject. No one is worried about making it look nice. And although I do see much more of the RTFM attitude than I'd like, there's much less of it than you make out. (I find it kind of ironic that the very start of this dialogue was the same type of attitude posed toward someone who asked a genuine question about Windows domains.)
I guess the problem is that I didn't make my point clear. My apologies.
Mirosoft makes money.
Period.
Software is just a byproduct of that process.
Documentation is just a byproduct of that process.
And, inidentally, a new car does come with the highway to drive on; at least, I've never had to buy one.
But I don't get the relation to this situation.
Who runs an office environment with multiple Windows machines without a domain?
Off the top of my head, I know that the electrical engineering department of a major university has over two hundred clients in a Workgroup.
The primary assumption is that running a Domain is a better model for everyone. It's not. All of the buggery that is coming out of Redmond now makes life hell for those who need to administer a Workgroup, who need to update clients on the network, but it doesn't mean that was the wrong decision for their office.
The point isn't, "Who runs an office environment... without a domain?" The point is, why,, if it is the way every office should be configured, is a domain controller not a part of every Windows NT installation? The point is, why should someone have to spend hundreds of dollars to find out about how to administer an operating environment?
When you buy into an operating environment, it's not just about the GUI, or the applications available; although those are the first two things that we think about, they end up being parts of the whole. It's the support system that really makes the difference between an environment that works and an environment that one knows how to use.
And although Microosoft is starting to 'innovate' the support network that Linux has, they are still a long way from it. Knowledge base articles can't even come close to the ammount of information available on the Internet (for free) regarding Linux and other Unix operating systems.
Mirosoft, by trying to control the dissemination of information regarding administering their operating environment, has spawned a hoarde of Linux advocates that aren't willing to give Microsof a chance anymore. The information for administering a Linux server is available on the Internet, if you mess it up, it's your own fault. For Micrsoft products, one must choose from the overpriced dead-tree documentation, or the overpriced monkey-certification system.
Don't blame them, because they didn't know about, or coudln't afford the myriad of add-ons that one had to purchase in order to simply get an operating environment they should have been sold to begin with.
Microoft--by trying to strip cash from clients for the basic operating system, the server, the services, the ability to access a server and the information to make it run--has created many of those same Linux advocates who criticize it. It's just a natural byproduct of selling incomplete systems to so many people. Small business can't afford the whole package, and so when the package they sold doesn't work as advertised, when Microsot holds out its palm once again for another add-on--or for the knowledge to use what they just bought--there's no doubt they're going to criticize it.
You put the blame on someone for not having a priori knowledge of Microoft products, or not being able to afford the outrageous license fees for using something that should have been a standard part of every Windows NT installation.
I put the blame on Microoft for trying to sell you the same piece of garbage eight times.
Don't you hate assholes who think they know something?
If you'd read, you would understand that there is no domain controller at this site. Can you say "workgroup?" If you'd bothered to read, you would understand there's no NT server at this site.
And since you're so smart, you know that no domain controller means no group policies. No NT Server means no poledit.exe.
If you weren't so worried about flaming someone, you might even have understood that.
Some people don't have the money to throw away on a server that almost works most of the time and a "certification" that helps just about as much as a bag of flaming poop.
Ultimately, SAMBA can provide these services, though you'll need a tool from the Windows NT Server kit (which means that you won't be implementing group policies until you have a copy of NT Server--not that it's worth it).
Slashdot Mirror
No one is advocating or "pirating" any software.
There's nothing illegal about changing your /etc/hosts file. There's nothing illegal about setting up a WebDAV server for yourself.
This isn't illegal. But try advertising a public iDisk server, or try redistributing Apple's Backup utility & you'll probably be needing a lawyer.
Apple may be quick about protecting a "look and feel," but to keep Microsoft from "innovating" them any more, I think they have every right. This has been around for months, been advertised on MacSlash & is still running strong.
PhysMem: 74.9M wired, 196M active, 223M inactive, 494M used, 146M free
VM: 3.10G + 70.9M 67260(0) pageins, 133662(0) pageouts
As always, I'm running a lot of stuff, including:
Classic
Photoshop
Mozilla
Mail
Ichat
Net Monitor
CPU Monitor
Launchbar
Slashdock
XDarwin
OroborOSX
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Having a portable power source is cool for a lot of reasons (think peripherals), but it doesn't fill a PowerBook or iBook shortfall; when it comes to portables, PCs can't touch the Mac.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
My god, someone around your company must be big into S & M. I can't believe anyone trusts Word for anything more than memos & letters.
People who *WORK* with their pc know how to pick the right tool for the job.
Thanks, this will have me laughing all day.
There are organizations that do exactly what you've outlined before; they take old hardware and give it to needing families.
The organization that does this in Seattle doesn't accept 386 or 486 generation machines anymore. It's just too much trouble.
By the way, these organizations have been aggressively harrassed by legal teams representing the copyright holder of Windows 95 for not having all the original media with every single computer they give out. So, don't think because it's old, it doesn't need to have a license.
Really, I've thought about this one long and hard. It's not that I like gratuitous waste. It's not that I think these machines shouldn't be used where they can be used. It's just that putting an old ready-to-break-down, no-support-or-warranty-available machine in some neophyte's home is going to cost them more time and cause them more trouble than simply going to the public library, or going to their school's computer lab.
These computers could do very well as terminal servers, where a support staff can take good care of them.
Hey, I said "pseudo liberal bullshit." It may not be much to you, but in my book there's a big difference.
In a perfect world, we can all pretend that this would be a fitting place for our old computers to end up. But what happens when that 800MB hard drive stops working? Where are they going to get another one and who is going to install it?
Who is going to give them the licenses they need to run the proprietary software you now prescribe?
Who is going to pay for the phone line, for the electricity and the ISP charges so that their computer can now browse the few sites that Netscape 2.0 can view?
The point still remains: it's a dream. It's like saying, "let them eat computers." There's a hell of a lot more that needs to happen than you dropping your old PC off at Ma & Pa Poorfolk's trailer & telling them they are now liberated.
Truly, I think your idea admirable, but the point I'm trying to make (& it looks that I didn't do very well) is that without the skills already in place, these computers are of little use.
You assume that people who can't afford an 8 year old ebay system would actually derive some kind of utility from them.
Bullshit, I says; 3 reasons:
1. People don't need computers. People need food, water, shelter and family.
2. Try to run Mandrake 9 or Red Hat 8 on these systems--it just won't work. Try to run an older distribution on them, people just won't know how to use the computer.
3. You need to organize some way of getting these computers to the people who need them instead of making some grandstand bullshit critique of other people. I'm sure if it came down to donating the computer or using it for a punching-bag, there would be no question where the computer would go. But you aren't organizing, are you?
Ultimately, things like this can raise money for people to use in more meaningful ways, like a fundraiser to buy food for a family. But to say that the computers themselves have an implicit value is complete bullshit.
Average people need solutions to their problems, not more problems to deal with. They don't need to spend months learning how to use their computer before they can use it. They don't need to deal with headache upon headache trying to get their computer to run right.
This "Let them eat computers" pseudo-liberal bullshit doesn't do anyone any good. Unless you're willing to give up a couple of years of your life to teach these people how to run Red Hat 5, OpenBSD, or Debian Linux, these old computers aren't going to do them any good.
I mean, really--do you really expect people to derive some kind of monetary income from having one of these machines? Do you really think that it's going to liberate them, or bring them something they need? If they want to compile any of the major software products for Linux, they'll be waiting days.
I don't mean to flame here, if you're working on a way for these computers to be useful (other than as terminal servers) then great, I'll eat every word here.
Your argument reminds me a lot of my mother telling me, "Eat all the brussel sprouts on your plate, for people in Africa are starving."
To which I says, "well send them to Africa."
Funny, I don't hear anything from the, "Macs are too expensive" camp. The real funny thing is I still get more for my money buying a Mac.
How long will that battery last while powering that P4 oven?
Will you be able to plug it into a gigabit ethernet?
Will it run commercial applications and Unix at the same time?
(Just a few things off the top of my head.)
But the spirit of the words remains true. If Microsoft provided something that people were happy with, there wouldn't be much more Linux than Linus could put together himself.
Ok, I'll call you crazy. Linux doesn't operate separate of Windows. Microsoft has been trying to dominate the server market like they did the desktop market for years. Because there were always better quality choices available, Microsoft could only break in on the low-end. Linux competes for the same low-end business servers that Microsoft has made such successful inroads at.RSS is a much easier format to use, and there's already much easier, much better tools like Slashdock that take advantage of RSS without being unweildy (as this seems to be).
With a properly designed and implemented system of groups, there's no need for ACLs.
Using SUDO beats giving ON or OFF Administrator privs to multiple people.
I'd say that gives UNIX a much finer granularity of control than NT.
NT 5 is catching-up with the "run as" command, but it's really only good for point-and-click administration.
more control == better security
Ain't it great? We've been enjoying this as a part of the standard BSD ports system for years.
Welcome.
How nice of you to join us.
Yeah, those Apple bastards, how dare they make /etc a soft link to /private/etc.
What was wrong with the old "Add/Remove Programs?"
Everything is registered there.
Why can't they use the Registry entries for the current default browser?
Why do they have to change the ground-rules, yet again, in order for programs to work?
Why make everyone--both creators and consumers--work to do what Microsoft was supposed to do itself?
That's a sad excuse for implementation of the agreement, and it's a harbinger of things to come: Microsoft will implement the terms of the agreement in any way that will prove to benefit Microsoft.
Hey, sorry if you consider my post abusive.
If you haven't paid for a Mandrake subscription, the Mandrake download page requires you to a)pay, or b)lie about paying. That's all. All they've done is remind you that you are abusing the system.
There's nothing that keeps you from lying but your own conscience.
The system works, not because programmers give away their code for free, but because they give it away so other programmers can help them improve it. It's an effort of a community. It's a giving culture that depends upon others giving back. The problem is, that most of the people who are coming into the fold these days have nothing that they can give back in terms of time or skills. They will be using the software, nothing more. The only thing they can give back is money.
But when they don't even do that, the system is bound to break.
And while you're speaking of Gentoo Linux, doesn't Daniel Robbins, creator of Gentoo, have a wife and child he needs to feed?
The little guys may not be in it for the money, but there are plenty of wives and children that do need to eat.
Freeloaders are the guys who don't give back time, code or money. Mandrake gives back all three. I'd say that makes them a pretty good community member.
I don't know how long it may have taken a genius like you, but it took all of two seconds to figure out that, yes I can download, and no, I don't have to pay for it.
What do you think that Mandrake is supposed to let you download without knowing that people's livelihoods rely on your payment? Do you think they should take you out to dinner too?
For someone who wants to USE their computer, Mandrake has the best distribution out there. There's a small learning curve compared to your other "high performance" Linux distros. They should get paid for that, or at least you should acknowledge that yes, you do want to take from the mouths of the people that put it together.
Mandrake sells Free software. They've held up to their end of the bargain. Schmucks like you who'd prefer to i-opener Mandrake and then bitch when they make you think about it should just go back to downloading your Warezed OS of choice and leave the good-guys alone.
I for one appreciate the value added by Mandrake. I appreciate that they are trying to protect the interests of the company by letting freeloaders^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H downloaders know that they are, in fact, abusing the system upon which they rely.
You schmucks should go back to Warez; give the little guys a chance before you i-opener them into oblivion.
You can't do anything like this in the windows UI. And although windows keyboard shortcuts will give you the ability to arrow your way through the start-menu, just use LaunchBar once, and you'll see that Windows' solution was good in Windows 3.0, but not anymore.
Granted, Microsoft has done some awesome things with keyboard support (I love context-sensitive help). And you're right, in OS X, some program menu tasks I can't do any other way but a mouse. But when it comes to typing Alt+F and arrowing my way through the menus, it's really not getting me any improvement in speed or functionality. I don't miss it at all.
If we're talking about OS X, I think its a moot point--I can close dialog boxes from the keyboard. I can rename files in the Finder from the keyboard by simply hitting RETURN (try doing that in Windows Explorer). And I can open any application or document on my system simply by holding down Apple+spacebar and typing in the first couple letters in its name.
LaunchBar is truly the most innovative program I have had the pleasure to work with for years. It brings the speed of the shell into the GUI. And like tab completion in the shell, once you have it, you never want to go back.
Laugh, it's funny.
A top-of-the-line PC?
(You can always tell the people who don't have to work on their top-of-the-line (i.e. gaming) PC.)
There's a reason that some things cost more than others.
I wish I had mod points, you Funny.
Girl don't go away mad,
Girl just go away.
Just don't pretend like you actually know something. Don't pretend that 99% of people are as stupid and lazy as you are.
With each successive post, you show how little you actually know about writing, about desktop publishing, about creating books & about computers in general.
Girl, don't go away mad,
Girl, just go away.
These are the same kind of people who were convinced by Microsoft marketing that Word was the right tool for everything; they were the bosses proclaimed that all work would be converted to Word. They were the same people who took years to finally recognize that they had been suckered.
I mean jeezus, you make it sound like I should be saying, "Oh that rascally Word has gone and changed my four-hundred page document again." For people who have actually had to work with it, Wordisms aren't something you can just laugh off or "empathise" with.
Empathize?
I'm supposed to empathize when Word destroys weeks of work?
Empathize?
What kind of tripe is that? And better yet, how does it get modded up to +5?
I'm supposed to laugh it off when word (bless it) wastes another of my weekends while I do the same work again so a client can actually open the document on their version of Word?
No, I'm sorry, you can't undo the damage that Word helpfully (bless it) does to your job and to your free time with Ctrl+Z.
And I'm sorry to say it, your post isn't in defense of Mirosoft; its in defense of the things you know--keeping the things you're comfortable with. Even though they don't work.
Your post is in defense of laziness.
Nothing more.
WordPerfect has advanced features, but that doesn't make it less "friendly" or usable than Word is. You can use WordPerfect in the same way that you do your rascally Word, but you won't. A good tool will go as far as you can take it, but obviously, you don't need to go too far.
So yeah, if you're concerned about making pretty kitty clipart on your self-printed letterhead, Word is for you.
The reason I state that a domain isn't for everyone is that not everyone can afford it.
The point I'm making is that one shouldn't have to decide between a)inferior corporate networking or b)overpriced software. If you need a Domain, you shouldn't have to settle with a Workgroup because Microft didn't make Domains available in your software product. You should be able to customize your software to meet your needs, from start to finish. You shouldn't have to spend thousands more just to make something that finally works the way you wanted it to.One should be able to have the server available out of the box (should they want it), or any number of possible installations (including workstation with full office suite).
Sounds crazy? Sounds Linux.
You're right, it's silly to make a one-size fit's all install, and that's exactly what Microoft does. I'm arguing quite the opposite. The Windows installation is not flexible enough; it doesn't give the user the ability to do anything more than install the basic bare-bones software that they bought. You should be able to decide whether you want to install NT Server or NT workstation (allong with the other software that Micosft sells separately). You should get that choice for the price of the operating environment you bought.The mrosoft gestalt is based upon the idea that one buys the base model and then buys more and pays more and spends more in order to reach what they need. As a contrast, let me use the FreeBSD model; one can configure the same installation of FreeBSD to be a secure Internet server, or to be a desktop operating system. It's up to the installer to decide what they want to do with the machine, not the committers, nor anyone else associated with the FreeBSD project. This is the flexibility that Miosoft products can not afford to have. This is the one size fits all that I'm crying about.
I beg to differ. There is no granularity. What is the difference between the Windows 2000 server that I install at home and the one that you install to be a domain controller on your 3000 node network? Nothing. You can choose from the vast array of icrosoft services that you want to buy for your "modular" server, but there is nothig modular about the server. My friend, it sounds as if you've led a fairly luxurious life up in the corporate cathedral. There's no business in the world that doesn't want to do things right, but the way that Microt sets things up, they need to make hard decisions between capital assets and depreciating investments of software and training of a high turnover workforce. And I'm sure there are a lot of admins, who, if they could afford the time and money, might pay for a MCSE Training Kit. The micosft model doesn't cater to these people. They don't have enough money to buy the complete product.Online newsgroups are an invaluble resource for those who do RTFM, and even for those who don't. I have never been a part of, nor come across an online newsgroup which was full of questions whose only reply was RTFM. For both the FreeBSD project and Linux, there are dedicated news newsgroups and mail lists who are staffed by people willing to do nothing but anwer new users' questions.
And as to the idea that Microft documentation is superior to the documentation produced by the Linux community, I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether a document is formatted better doesn't make it better documentation.
I spend my days around people that devote themselves to writing "good documentation." I have been at meetings for organizations which devote themselves to writing "good documentation," but all they end up worrying about is following the Microsoft Manual of Style. Most of the documentation "experts" I've had the opportunity to be around are more concerned with statement uniformity, with fonts and with orphaned lines than they are about producing good content. And I'd say this holds true for most of the Microsoft Press documentation that I've had the opportunity to read.
The difference is that the documentation for Linux programs, although it is terse, is directly related to the subject. No one is worried about making it look nice. And although I do see much more of the RTFM attitude than I'd like, there's much less of it than you make out. (I find it kind of ironic that the very start of this dialogue was the same type of attitude posed toward someone who asked a genuine question about Windows domains.)
I guess the problem is that I didn't make my point clear. My apologies.
Mirosoft makes money.
Period.
Software is just a byproduct of that process.
Documentation is just a byproduct of that process.
And, inidentally, a new car does come with the highway to drive on; at least, I've never had to buy one.
But I don't get the relation to this situation.
The primary assumption is that running a Domain is a better model for everyone. It's not. All of the buggery that is coming out of Redmond now makes life hell for those who need to administer a Workgroup, who need to update clients on the network, but it doesn't mean that was the wrong decision for their office.
The point isn't, "Who runs an office environment... without a domain?" The point is, why,, if it is the way every office should be configured, is a domain controller not a part of every Windows NT installation? The point is, why should someone have to spend hundreds of dollars to find out about how to administer an operating environment?
When you buy into an operating environment, it's not just about the GUI, or the applications available; although those are the first two things that we think about, they end up being parts of the whole. It's the support system that really makes the difference between an environment that works and an environment that one knows how to use.
And although Microosoft is starting to 'innovate' the support network that Linux has, they are still a long way from it. Knowledge base articles can't even come close to the ammount of information available on the Internet (for free) regarding Linux and other Unix operating systems.
Mirosoft, by trying to control the dissemination of information regarding administering their operating environment, has spawned a hoarde of Linux advocates that aren't willing to give Microsof a chance anymore. The information for administering a Linux server is available on the Internet, if you mess it up, it's your own fault. For Micrsoft products, one must choose from the overpriced dead-tree documentation, or the overpriced monkey-certification system.
Don't blame them, because they didn't know about, or coudln't afford the myriad of add-ons that one had to purchase in order to simply get an operating environment they should have been sold to begin with.
Microoft--by trying to strip cash from clients for the basic operating system, the server, the services, the ability to access a server and the information to make it run--has created many of those same Linux advocates who criticize it. It's just a natural byproduct of selling incomplete systems to so many people. Small business can't afford the whole package, and so when the package they sold doesn't work as advertised, when Microsot holds out its palm once again for another add-on--or for the knowledge to use what they just bought--there's no doubt they're going to criticize it.
You put the blame on someone for not having a priori knowledge of Microoft products, or not being able to afford the outrageous license fees for using something that should have been a standard part of every Windows NT installation.
I put the blame on Microoft for trying to sell you the same piece of garbage eight times.
If you'd read, you would understand that there is no domain controller at this site. Can you say "workgroup?" If you'd bothered to read, you would understand there's no NT server at this site.
And since you're so smart, you know that no domain controller means no group policies. No NT Server means no poledit.exe.
If you weren't so worried about flaming someone, you might even have understood that.
Some people don't have the money to throw away on a server that almost works most of the time and a "certification" that helps just about as much as a bag of flaming poop.
Ultimately, SAMBA can provide these services, though you'll need a tool from the Windows NT Server kit (which means that you won't be implementing group policies until you have a copy of NT Server--not that it's worth it).
Here's a link to find out more.