It's not just a stand in for user. I am a user. I'm also a programmer with 5.5 years commercial experience, academic and hobbyist experience before that, who's been using some kind of computer for the best part of 21 years. In no way am I a "Joe User" - he's the average guy on the street who just happens to also use a computer.
It's not perjorative at all, and it's rather more specific than "user", which encompasses *everyone* who uses computers, from your gran to a hackneyed old sysadmin with 20 years experience.
On the other hand, it's also not very professional, so should probably be dropped on those grounds. Something more like "average user", "inexperienced user", etc, would be better, I think. Not everyone is going to know what's meant by "Joe User" in the first place (clearly, as we're having this conversation!)
That really depends on differences in dialect and language. It's easy to imagine that an informal word in one dialect, or similar word from another language, could mean something quite different in another.
There's a simple reason for that - sci-fi writers look at the cutting edge of current tech and research, extrapolate towards the logical conclusion, and write about it. Meanwhile, scientists and other geeky/techy types read sci-fi, are inspired by the ideas, and so work towards them, either officially (if it's not too far-fetched), or in their spare time.
Note that word - purchasers can redistribute it to non-purchasers, but I can choose to only make the source available to anyone who I provide a binart yo.
I think you misunderstand the GPL in that respect. gnu.org appears to not be responding at the moment, but from memory the FAQ refers to "the users of the program" when speaking of source code availability, not "the users of the program who obtained it from you". As I understand it, if you (re)distribute a GPLed program, then anyone who receives it from whatever source can ask you for the source, and you have no right to refuse. (You can of course charge a handling/shipping/media fee as appropriate).
Re:Linux made huge advances in user-friendliness
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
please tell me how that would be different if she was to install Windows?
It wouldn't. The big difference is that she would be installing Windows, it would have come pre-installed. Most PCs these days also ship with a rescue/restore disk, that does a wipe and reinstall. Slap it in, click "yes I'm sure", wait, and you're good to go. (Well, good to go recreate all your data if you didn't make regular backups, and to reinstall any additional software, but you get the point).
Even failing that, a lot of PC shops will no doubt install it for you, for a modest fee. You'd probably have a much harder job finding one to install Linux for you, though.
Re:Linux made huge advances in user-friendliness
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
I'm amazed how many people here like to bash Linux by reviving cliche's that were still true a few years ago, but are all but gone by now.
Fair's fair - an awful lot of people here do exactly the same thing regarding Windows. For example:
And no need to reinstall every few months because a worm messed up the system.
My XP machine at home has been installed for nearly 2 years now, with no need to reinstall for any reason, let alone a worm infestation. (In fact, in the 8 years I've owned a PC, I've had one virus, and that was my own fault - running code downloaded from an untrusted source with no AV software installed.) Same goes for everyone I know who has a PC running Windows. Sure, clueless users are likely to do this - but then they're just as likely to mess something up while running as root under Linux, and resort to a reinstall to fix that, too.
Also:
A Windows install? The first few steps are quite similar, but once the system is installed the fun begins: insert manufacturer disk to install custom drivers; insert MS Office CDs to install word processor; hop on the web to download Acrobat Reader; install IM client, jukebox, IE replacement, firewall, and whatnot.
XP comes with Messenger (so there's your IM client), Windows Media Player (jukebox) and a firewall, and almost all driver CDs I've used lately have included manuals in pdf format and so have included Acrobat Reader. Windows itself ships with drivers for a lot of common hardware, too. Not as much as Linux, perhaps, but then the release cycle is rather longer. At least you're guaranteed to get drivers, which as you say is not necessarily the case for Linux.
Re:That's what you get...
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The courses tend to be compulsory because they're viewed as being important. Whether the students agree or not is largely irrelevant; they have to do them, so, they have to do them.
Also, I personally think it's a good chance to learn an extremely important skill (imho): forcing yourself to do something that you don't really want to do. After all, you're going to have to do at least a degree of that in almost any job you get.
Deciding if something is wrong or right should not depend on laws.
Ideally, the law should codify what is right and wrong, in as many cases as possible (there will always be exceptions). So while it should not depend on the law, it should certainly be reflected by the law.
it means that EVERYONE loses the "freedom" to feel secure against random deadly attack.
That feeling, unfortunately, is illusory, and always will be. Making killing illegal, with stiff penalties for killers, makes it less likely, not impossible, that you will be the victim of a random deadly attack.
Many Slashbots are too young to have corporate experience with intranets and what-not. And some of the 'moderators' of the site, while older, have always only faced out to the Internet, never to an internal intranet.
That's true; and yet, this site is supposedly "news for nerds". Shouldn't nerds be aware of that sort of difference?
I am increasingly finding that this site is actually more like "news for people who like Linux and computers and science and stuff, but don't actually have much in depth knowledge, except maybe in one or two very narrow areas". I don't suppose that that would fit under the slashdot graphic, though;-)
1) How is this sure to increase security? Known terrorists are hardly the problem now; implementing this won't help against the known ones, and the unknown ones, well, they're unknown...
2) What do you mean, "lately"? Some of us have been living with the possibility of a terrorist attack all our lives.
that they have full access to and you pay a monthly fee for. Full access to your corporate secrets, corporate colaborative secrets.
Don't be ridiculous. No company would go for that; you think the uptake for Passport has been bad? That idea is an utter non-starter.
As others have said, this is most likely targetted at an internally hosted server. The subscription aspect is probably more to do with this server (and possibly the client apps) 'phoning home on a regular basis to maintain their licencing details. Stop paying, and they stop working.
Isn't that what source code control systems are for, even for binaries?
I've had enough trouble getting some programmers (in some cases, quite senior and highly paid ones) to use CVS. Good luck getting project managers, secretaries, etc using it, or any other source control system that isn't integrated into the application they're using. If it's any harder than "right click -> Edit Now" or similar it won't be used.
What the heck does that even mean?
Most likely it means that you set up a document repository on a server (backed by the filesystem or database or whatever), call it "ProjectX", then tell people to set Office to get its documents from there. It'll most probably work a bit like a network share, with some kind of edit locking and update notification on top, and possibly some kind of authentication and encryption for working on documents off site. In fact, implemented correctly, this could mean the end of taking documents home to work on them, something I think a lot of businesses would like to see from an information security point of view.
Sounds like they're dreaming about some sort of uberlayer on top of all Office apps that will let you somehow get information no matter where it's stored. AND do it collaboratively.
"Easily" taken care of with either a central server and/or some p2p tech built into the clients. The only challenges that immediately spring to mind are around coping with loss of network connectivity, but on a properly maintained LAN that should be a very rare occurrence, so graceful failure may be acceptable.
Believe it when I see it, chappies.
So will I; but in the meantime, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as to what is and is not possible.
While I agree that that's the most likely outcome of this, I feel I have to point out that I've done a little work with ASP.NET, and *all* the standard components render perfectly well and are fully functional in both IE and Netscape/Mozilla. That's not to say that they necessarily render identically, but they do work (and look right) in both.
Assuming that this is essentially about creating a web front-end to Office, rather than integrating web-based collaboration and sharing in an Office client/Office server combo, then I agree that it's most likely to require IE. Personally though, I see it as being implemented as extra functionality in the next release of Office - using "web services" does not mean it necessaarily follows that you'll be using a "web browser".
Whatever OS their required software runs on. For me, that's gone Windows -> Linux -> Windows. Right now, swtiching back to Linux (if I wanted to) is not an option. Besides which, I've found that a properly maintained XP box crashes as often as a properly maintained Linux box - ie, essentially never.
I think the reason some of us are getting tired of all the unnecessary anti-MS FUD is because the people spreading it keep on harping on about stuff that's not been true (for us at least) for years. Instability? The four XP machines I use are all perfectly stable. Unsecure? Again, all the machines I use are secure (or at least, have never been compromised, which is all you can really say). Costly? No more so than buying a copy of a Linux distro, and that's when I didn't get the licence with the machine. (Sure, I could just download it, but everyone's got bills to pay.)
About the only arguments the anti-MS people really have left are ethical ones, and I'm not convinced that MS are actually any worse than any other large companies in that respect. Better than a lot, in fact - while they may be patenting stuff I find questionable, they've not (yet?) sued anyone for infringement. That's more than can be said of a lot of companies.
Then you may end up with transmission problems, of course; building the power plant too far from where the power will be used is wasteful. You'll also probably have trouble hiring people to run it, if it means a commute of a few hours, or living out in the middle of nowhere.
I've actually heard this, when a colleague of my girlfriend's referred to the copy of "Windows 97" installed on her computer. Of course it was Windows 95 and Office 97, but being a secretary, she spent almost all of her time in Word...
This happened. I could understand how some Christians could get a little miffed. Could someone explain how it is offensive to Muslims?
Maybe they're deeply ashamed of what their forebears did, and would rather not be reminded of it? Similar to the way in which Nazi symbols and paraphenalia is banned in Germany.
Note that I'm just guessing - but it seems like a possibility to me.
The phrase you're looking for would be something along the lines of "available for use by all under a limited, no-fee licence" (IANAL, etc). In some respects ("free to use", "no fee") "open source" conveys the right sort of feel, but the GP is correct - things covered by patents are by their very nature open source.
It's that sort of distinction that has the FSF preferring the term "software libre", as merely having access to the source is not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
it is simply a stand-in for "user"
It's not just a stand in for user. I am a user. I'm also a programmer with 5.5 years commercial experience, academic and hobbyist experience before that, who's been using some kind of computer for the best part of 21 years. In no way am I a "Joe User" - he's the average guy on the street who just happens to also use a computer.
It's not perjorative at all, and it's rather more specific than "user", which encompasses *everyone* who uses computers, from your gran to a hackneyed old sysadmin with 20 years experience.
On the other hand, it's also not very professional, so should probably be dropped on those grounds. Something more like "average user", "inexperienced user", etc, would be better, I think. Not everyone is going to know what's meant by "Joe User" in the first place (clearly, as we're having this conversation!)
That really depends on differences in dialect and language. It's easy to imagine that an informal word in one dialect, or similar word from another language, could mean something quite different in another.
There's a simple reason for that - sci-fi writers look at the cutting edge of current tech and research, extrapolate towards the logical conclusion, and write about it. Meanwhile, scientists and other geeky/techy types read sci-fi, are inspired by the ideas, and so work towards them, either officially (if it's not too far-fetched), or in their spare time.
Well, as patent holder, he could just yell something like "Ok, you can have a licence!!!"" while flipping the switch...
Note that word - purchasers can redistribute it to non-purchasers, but I can choose to only make the source available to anyone who I provide a binart yo.
I think you misunderstand the GPL in that respect. gnu.org appears to not be responding at the moment, but from memory the FAQ refers to "the users of the program" when speaking of source code availability, not "the users of the program who obtained it from you". As I understand it, if you (re)distribute a GPLed program, then anyone who receives it from whatever source can ask you for the source, and you have no right to refuse. (You can of course charge a handling/shipping/media fee as appropriate).
please tell me how that would be different if she was to install Windows?
It wouldn't. The big difference is that she would be installing Windows, it would have come pre-installed. Most PCs these days also ship with a rescue/restore disk, that does a wipe and reinstall. Slap it in, click "yes I'm sure", wait, and you're good to go. (Well, good to go recreate all your data if you didn't make regular backups, and to reinstall any additional software, but you get the point).
Even failing that, a lot of PC shops will no doubt install it for you, for a modest fee. You'd probably have a much harder job finding one to install Linux for you, though.
I'm amazed how many people here like to bash Linux by reviving cliche's that were still true a few years ago, but are all but gone by now.
Fair's fair - an awful lot of people here do exactly the same thing regarding Windows. For example:
And no need to reinstall every few months because a worm messed up the system.
My XP machine at home has been installed for nearly 2 years now, with no need to reinstall for any reason, let alone a worm infestation. (In fact, in the 8 years I've owned a PC, I've had one virus, and that was my own fault - running code downloaded from an untrusted source with no AV software installed.) Same goes for everyone I know who has a PC running Windows. Sure, clueless users are likely to do this - but then they're just as likely to mess something up while running as root under Linux, and resort to a reinstall to fix that, too.
Also:
A Windows install? The first few steps are quite similar, but once the system is installed the fun begins: insert manufacturer disk to install custom drivers; insert MS Office CDs to install word processor; hop on the web to download Acrobat Reader; install IM client, jukebox, IE replacement, firewall, and whatnot.
XP comes with Messenger (so there's your IM client), Windows Media Player (jukebox) and a firewall, and almost all driver CDs I've used lately have included manuals in pdf format and so have included Acrobat Reader. Windows itself ships with drivers for a lot of common hardware, too. Not as much as Linux, perhaps, but then the release cycle is rather longer. At least you're guaranteed to get drivers, which as you say is not necessarily the case for Linux.
The courses tend to be compulsory because they're viewed as being important. Whether the students agree or not is largely irrelevant; they have to do them, so, they have to do them.
Also, I personally think it's a good chance to learn an extremely important skill (imho): forcing yourself to do something that you don't really want to do. After all, you're going to have to do at least a degree of that in almost any job you get.
Deciding if something is wrong or right should not depend on laws.
Ideally, the law should codify what is right and wrong, in as many cases as possible (there will always be exceptions). So while it should not depend on the law, it should certainly be reflected by the law.
it means that EVERYONE loses the "freedom" to feel secure against random deadly attack.
That feeling, unfortunately, is illusory, and always will be. Making killing illegal, with stiff penalties for killers, makes it less likely, not impossible, that you will be the victim of a random deadly attack.
in theory, closed-source software that isn't available for free download and in open-source version should be more effective against spam.
How so?
1) install software
2) treat as black box
3) spam spam spam
4) see what gets through
5) study, enhance
6) goto 3)
Just because you can't see how it works, doesn't mean you can't teach yourself how to get around it.
Many Slashbots are too young to have corporate experience with intranets and what-not. And some of the 'moderators' of the site, while older, have always only faced out to the Internet, never to an internal intranet.
;-)
That's true; and yet, this site is supposedly "news for nerds". Shouldn't nerds be aware of that sort of difference?
I am increasingly finding that this site is actually more like "news for people who like Linux and computers and science and stuff, but don't actually have much in depth knowledge, except maybe in one or two very narrow areas". I don't suppose that that would fit under the slashdot graphic, though
1) How is this sure to increase security? Known terrorists are hardly the problem now; implementing this won't help against the known ones, and the unknown ones, well, they're unknown...
2) What do you mean, "lately"? Some of us have been living with the possibility of a terrorist attack all our lives.
that they have full access to and you pay a monthly fee for. Full access to your corporate secrets, corporate colaborative secrets.
Don't be ridiculous. No company would go for that; you think the uptake for Passport has been bad? That idea is an utter non-starter.
As others have said, this is most likely targetted at an internally hosted server. The subscription aspect is probably more to do with this server (and possibly the client apps) 'phoning home on a regular basis to maintain their licencing details. Stop paying, and they stop working.
Isn't that what source code control systems are for, even for binaries?
I've had enough trouble getting some programmers (in some cases, quite senior and highly paid ones) to use CVS. Good luck getting project managers, secretaries, etc using it, or any other source control system that isn't integrated into the application they're using. If it's any harder than "right click -> Edit Now" or similar it won't be used.
What the heck does that even mean?
Most likely it means that you set up a document repository on a server (backed by the filesystem or database or whatever), call it "ProjectX", then tell people to set Office to get its documents from there. It'll most probably work a bit like a network share, with some kind of edit locking and update notification on top, and possibly some kind of authentication and encryption for working on documents off site. In fact, implemented correctly, this could mean the end of taking documents home to work on them, something I think a lot of businesses would like to see from an information security point of view.
Sounds like they're dreaming about some sort of uberlayer on top of all Office apps that will let you somehow get information no matter where it's stored. AND do it collaboratively.
"Easily" taken care of with either a central server and/or some p2p tech built into the clients. The only challenges that immediately spring to mind are around coping with loss of network connectivity, but on a properly maintained LAN that should be a very rare occurrence, so graceful failure may be acceptable.
Believe it when I see it, chappies.
So will I; but in the meantime, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as to what is and is not possible.
the configuration will be the IE web browser.
While I agree that that's the most likely outcome of this, I feel I have to point out that I've done a little work with ASP.NET, and *all* the standard components render perfectly well and are fully functional in both IE and Netscape/Mozilla. That's not to say that they necessarily render identically, but they do work (and look right) in both.
Assuming that this is essentially about creating a web front-end to Office, rather than integrating web-based collaboration and sharing in an Office client/Office server combo, then I agree that it's most likely to require IE. Personally though, I see it as being implemented as extra functionality in the next release of Office - using "web services" does not mean it necessaarily follows that you'll be using a "web browser".
What would you suggest a person use?
Whatever OS their required software runs on. For me, that's gone Windows -> Linux -> Windows. Right now, swtiching back to Linux (if I wanted to) is not an option. Besides which, I've found that a properly maintained XP box crashes as often as a properly maintained Linux box - ie, essentially never.
I think the reason some of us are getting tired of all the unnecessary anti-MS FUD is because the people spreading it keep on harping on about stuff that's not been true (for us at least) for years. Instability? The four XP machines I use are all perfectly stable. Unsecure? Again, all the machines I use are secure (or at least, have never been compromised, which is all you can really say). Costly? No more so than buying a copy of a Linux distro, and that's when I didn't get the licence with the machine. (Sure, I could just download it, but everyone's got bills to pay.)
About the only arguments the anti-MS people really have left are ethical ones, and I'm not convinced that MS are actually any worse than any other large companies in that respect. Better than a lot, in fact - while they may be patenting stuff I find questionable, they've not (yet?) sued anyone for infringement. That's more than can be said of a lot of companies.
Then you may end up with transmission problems, of course; building the power plant too far from where the power will be used is wasteful. You'll also probably have trouble hiring people to run it, if it means a commute of a few hours, or living out in the middle of nowhere.
Depends. If they all maintained their positions relative to one another, and you didn't hit anything unfortunate, I don't see why not.
Maybe if people keep posting them, the editors will get a clue about the heinous IT color scheme.
We can but hope, but it didn't do any good for the games section colour scheme...
That would probably depend on whether they preferred apples or oranges...
I've actually heard this, when a colleague of my girlfriend's referred to the copy of "Windows 97" installed on her computer. Of course it was Windows 95 and Office 97, but being a secretary, she spent almost all of her time in Word...
This happened. I could understand how some Christians could get a little miffed. Could someone explain how it is offensive to Muslims?
Maybe they're deeply ashamed of what their forebears did, and would rather not be reminded of it? Similar to the way in which Nazi symbols and paraphenalia is banned in Germany.
Note that I'm just guessing - but it seems like a possibility to me.
Maybe I can hope for a matter-antimatter type relationship and they'll both disappear?
In a hugely energetic explosion that is fatal to all caught within the blast?
Yeah, sounds like an apt analogy.
The phrase you're looking for would be something along the lines of "available for use by all under a limited, no-fee licence" (IANAL, etc). In some respects ("free to use", "no fee") "open source" conveys the right sort of feel, but the GP is correct - things covered by patents are by their very nature open source.
It's that sort of distinction that has the FSF preferring the term "software libre", as merely having access to the source is not the same thing.