This bug was fixed the same day that it became public knowledge.
What do you mean "public knowledge"? The code was always there, the bug was always "public knowledge". I think what you really mean is "responsibly disclosed" which also happens regularly in closed-source software.
Gee. it sure is a problem that Red Hat, Debian, or Ubuntu couldn't just, you know, fix the bug and recompile the source code. Oh wait, they already did
I think the point TFS is trying to make is that GnuTLS maintainers can't just fix the issue and push the fix to end users, it has to go through the vendors first. The same PITA issue that Android users have with OS updates having to go through carriers where sure the tech-savvy minority that happen to know about it can chase down the fix, recompile and re-install their systems but the vast majority of people can't and so are exposed to vulnerabilities for a much longer time.
Well, embrace-extend-extinguish works both ways, doesn't it?
Huh? That doesn't really make any sense in this context, that was about taking an existing standard and adding proprietary extensions to it.
Yes, it's very possible to improve on Windows. MS apparently doesn't know how (Windows 8 is proof if any was needed), but there are quite a few ideas that Linux and yes, even MacOS showed that do improve the experience considerably.
On the Mac, yes but I haven't seen much on the Linux side of things, Ubuntu hasn't really been an improvement - Gnome 3 and Unity have been disasters - and KDE has been pretty static.
Most recently we were arguing about why businesses needed outlook on the desktop, and this in turn is why they are willing to buy business licenses of Microsoft office instead of just buying the cheaper home and student version.
And the reason for that was to justify the Home and Student model for the iPad version of Office, which you have said isn't going to cut it for businesses so the Home and Student concept is for licensing to non-businesses is completely valid because apparently businesses won't see value in the product anyway.
The question was: how does Microsoft ensure businesses buy a commercial use license of Office for ipads?
If you believe the iPad "isn't going to cut it" for businesses then the issue isn't licensing anyway so again your argument is irrelevant.
I was going to respond to the other points but then I read this and realized the rest is redundant anyway:
Beleive it or not some of us do real work, on computers, at desks. And, no, an ipad isn't going to cut it.
If an iPad isn't going to cut it then what the hell are you even arguing about?! the whole point was about a Home and Student standalone license for iPad so if an iPad isn't going to cut it for the businesses that have the dependencies you are talking about then Office for iPad is going to be of no interest to them anyway.
You can use POP3, IMAP, and SMTP protocols to access your exchange server from any of those email clients, but the reality is you don't need exchange and outlook, just look here, though I'm sure you will come back and continue pretending that those millions of companies need Outlook and aren't managing without it. You can argue that "oh there's no full support for exchange blah blah blah" all you want but the fact is millions of people and companies get by just fine without it and you do not need it for email, contacts and calendars.
Thunderbird, eM, Zimbra, Postbox, Apple Mail or you know, your entirely capable email client on your Android phone or tablet, your iPhone or your iPad. You can even get Android tablets for less than the cost of standalone Outlook!
This is really the reason Windows continues to dominate the desktop and laptop space, so many users are indoctrinated into the Windows way of doing things having been introduced to computing post-95 that competing solutions would need to imitate to be useful and if you're only going to imitate then why would users change.
A touch screen on a PC or laptop is a solution looking for a problem.
When it's a wacom digitizer and you can use pen input as well as touch using it in a tablet form factor (surface, transformer, convertible) then it's pretty damn useful.
Search doesn't even make sense if you don't know what's installed on the computer or don't remember every detail of what you have installed or not installed, or removed.
Then what are you doing? If you are trying to clean up your PC then on windows I believe it's Add/Remove Programs and if you don't know what you're looking for then what are you even trying to do? Alternatively you could open the start menu folder which has all the links to the start screen items if you really wanted to browse them in an explorer type view. How often are you having this problem?
Ok so what you're saying is that when he said:
"Windows on a phone works pretty well -- I picked up a Nokia 520 because it was $40 and why not, and it's actually quite decent." Here
you were confused about what he meant by "Windows", personally I thought it was pretty obvious he meant Windows Phone but ok.
Now explain to me how the heck I should "adapt and overcome" to Metro in a way that is more productive and contributes less overhead. Go ahead.
I'm not about to suggest a solution to you because obviously you're tied to the start menu, I can only suggest you never try to use OS X or many Linux distributions, you'd be in for a shock.
Because... ??? Honestly, the only reason that comes to mind is that they are incapable of admitting that the whole thing was just plain a bad idea.
Well the traditional Windows 7 UI is a royal pain in the ass to use on touchscreen devices so you need an interface more tailored to touchscreens which the modern UI is good at. Their only issue was making it the default on desktops.
Earlier attempts at putting Windows such as CE/Mobile or whatever on a phone such as the Compaq iPaq tried to reproduce the Windows UI with the start menu, task bar and so on. It was awful. I think the tiles on Windows Phone 8 actually work pretty well but there are no windows. It doesn't look like Windows.
That's just branding, he was obviously referring to Windows Phone since he called out specifically the Nokia 520 which has Windows Phone and that OS does not have windows (as in the UI paradigm). Not to mention he said "Windows on a phone works pretty well", again clearly referring to the operating system rather than the UI paradigm.
I would think most computer-literate people (which I thought would be the people here though they seem to be screaming the loudest) that are using a keyboard/mouse would be using search rather than scrolling/browsing menus. Whether it's OS X or Windows I find search to be the most efficient way to launch programs. I can understand some of the indoctrinated Windows users struggling with the removal of the start menu (it's a product of the mainstream computing era of Win 95-7) but I certainly wouldn't think many others would have a problem with it, it didn't exist pre-95 and doesn't on other platforms (even though there are some start menu -style implementations on some Linux distros).
Windows on a phone is crap - did you ever try the Compaq iPaq?
You do realize you are comparing completely different operating systems with different core and UI and completely different hardware with over a decade between them and different input mechanisms don't you? I don't see how you expect to draw any meaningful conclusion comparing a 14 year old iPaq to a 1 year old Nokia 520 when they have virtually nothing in common apart from the word "Windows" being part of the title of their operating system.
Powershell is a bloated monster and is most definitely not an advertisement for Windows Server.
How is that? I'm not a server admin and I haven't really had any experience with PowerShell - I've written a lot of Bash though:) - but I'm just interested.
How is it not desperation when Microsoft has to start giving away their flagship mobile OS because no one wants it?
It's not necessarily desperation to realise that licensing costs are a barrier to entry and to find alternate ways to cover costs.
Or that they're FINALLY bringing back something resembling a proper desktop UI instead of their ridiculous fisher-price ATM interface that they had forced on people, and in the process added insult to injury on an already flagging computer market.
Ok let's be serious, the only thing they really brought back was the start menu. If that's what you consider necessary to being a desktop UI then you probably haven't had much experience with computers outside Windows 95 - 7, the desktop paradigm was broadly used long before anything resembling the start menu came into existence. I use a computer to use applications and none of the applications I use have this modern UI (probably because it didn't exist prior to Windows 8) so as far as my work was concerned I didn't notice much difference with Windows 8, the biggest change was the absence of the start menu though I mostly use OS X and Linux so even on Windows I tended not to use the start menu anyway.
Not to mention that harm to Mozilla is obviously going to harm all of those Mozilla employees that spoke out about their concerns, probably moreso than it will to Eich. I agree, blatant publicity stunt.
The other desktop clients with exchange support range from bearable to broken.
In what ways exactly?
But "Outlook" + "Outlook Home and Student" is in the same ball park as Office Standard VLA; with a fraction the licensing grief. So businesses that want office will pay the delta for outlook.
Except when they don't need Outlook, but you insist that all businesses require Outlook which is absolute rubbish.
Like what else are you credibly going to replace outlook with on the desktop? Apple Mail? Kmail? Thunderbird with ExQuilla?
So what you're telling me is you actually believe there is no desktop mail client other than Outlook that supports Calendars, Email and Contacts properly but the mobile clients do.
I don't need to portray as irreplaceable and unmatched. Its users do that.
Why not? Its decent access to Exchange from a smartphone.
If decent access to Exchange is what you need then you don't need Outlook either.
What precisely do -you- think businesses need Outlook for?
I just asked you that question.
At minimum: Calendar, Contacts, Email - all synchronized to the server and desktop and phone.
Outlook is just a client (like the many other mail clients) and it doesn't synchronize your email to your phone, that has nothing to do with Outlook nor does it matter whether you use Outlook as your email client for an Exchange server, you can use any email client that supports Exchange.
Again... what precisely do -you- think businesses need outlook for?
Calendars, Email and Contacts. None of which are exclusive to Outlook.
But this is all irrelevant anyway because Outlook is not tied to Office, you can purchase Outlook individually at a fraction of the cost of Office. If you have ignorantly believed whatever the MS sales people tell you then you can still have Outlook and use whatever office suite you want. I can't see why you're so desperate to portray Outlook as some irreplaceable and unmatched product that is essential to businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
This bug was fixed the same day that it became public knowledge.
What do you mean "public knowledge"? The code was always there, the bug was always "public knowledge". I think what you really mean is "responsibly disclosed" which also happens regularly in closed-source software.
Gee. it sure is a problem that Red Hat, Debian, or Ubuntu couldn't just, you know, fix the bug and recompile the source code. Oh wait, they already did
I think the point TFS is trying to make is that GnuTLS maintainers can't just fix the issue and push the fix to end users, it has to go through the vendors first. The same PITA issue that Android users have with OS updates having to go through carriers where sure the tech-savvy minority that happen to know about it can chase down the fix, recompile and re-install their systems but the vast majority of people can't and so are exposed to vulnerabilities for a much longer time.
Well, embrace-extend-extinguish works both ways, doesn't it?
Huh? That doesn't really make any sense in this context, that was about taking an existing standard and adding proprietary extensions to it.
Yes, it's very possible to improve on Windows. MS apparently doesn't know how (Windows 8 is proof if any was needed), but there are quite a few ideas that Linux and yes, even MacOS showed that do improve the experience considerably.
On the Mac, yes but I haven't seen much on the Linux side of things, Ubuntu hasn't really been an improvement - Gnome 3 and Unity have been disasters - and KDE has been pretty static.
Most recently we were arguing about why businesses needed outlook on the desktop, and this in turn is why they are willing to buy business licenses of Microsoft office instead of just buying the cheaper home and student version.
And the reason for that was to justify the Home and Student model for the iPad version of Office, which you have said isn't going to cut it for businesses so the Home and Student concept is for licensing to non-businesses is completely valid because apparently businesses won't see value in the product anyway.
The question was: how does Microsoft ensure businesses buy a commercial use license of Office for ipads?
If you believe the iPad "isn't going to cut it" for businesses then the issue isn't licensing anyway so again your argument is irrelevant.
Beleive it or not some of us do real work, on computers, at desks. And, no, an ipad isn't going to cut it.
If an iPad isn't going to cut it then what the hell are you even arguing about?! the whole point was about a Home and Student standalone license for iPad so if an iPad isn't going to cut it for the businesses that have the dependencies you are talking about then Office for iPad is going to be of no interest to them anyway.
Zimbra ... doesn't even have a desktop client.
Yeah totally doesn't have one.
None of which will run on a desktop and so are completely beside the point.
Why do they have to run on a desktop? The mobile clients are perfectly usable and much more useful given that you aren't tied to your desk.
Thunderbird, eM, Zimbra, Postbox, Apple Mail or you know, your entirely capable email client on your Android phone or tablet, your iPhone or your iPad. You can even get Android tablets for less than the cost of standalone Outlook!
This is really the reason Windows continues to dominate the desktop and laptop space, so many users are indoctrinated into the Windows way of doing things having been introduced to computing post-95 that competing solutions would need to imitate to be useful and if you're only going to imitate then why would users change.
A touch screen on a PC or laptop is a solution looking for a problem.
When it's a wacom digitizer and you can use pen input as well as touch using it in a tablet form factor (surface, transformer, convertible) then it's pretty damn useful.
I wouldn't think people who aren't professional admins would have shelled out for a server version of Windows (which is the topic of this thread).
Search doesn't even make sense if you don't know what's installed on the computer or don't remember every detail of what you have installed or not installed, or removed.
Then what are you doing? If you are trying to clean up your PC then on windows I believe it's Add/Remove Programs and if you don't know what you're looking for then what are you even trying to do? Alternatively you could open the start menu folder which has all the links to the start screen items if you really wanted to browse them in an explorer type view. How often are you having this problem?
Ok so what you're saying is that when he said:
"Windows on a phone works pretty well -- I picked up a Nokia 520 because it was $40 and why not, and it's actually quite decent." Here
you were confused about what he meant by "Windows", personally I thought it was pretty obvious he meant Windows Phone but ok.
Now explain to me how the heck I should "adapt and overcome" to Metro in a way that is more productive and contributes less overhead. Go ahead.
I'm not about to suggest a solution to you because obviously you're tied to the start menu, I can only suggest you never try to use OS X or many Linux distributions, you'd be in for a shock.
What people who whine about "you should just install Start8 and get over it" miss is this very simple point.
You should not HAVE to.
And that attitude is precisely why Linux has failed on the desktop!
Because... ??? Honestly, the only reason that comes to mind is that they are incapable of admitting that the whole thing was just plain a bad idea.
Well the traditional Windows 7 UI is a royal pain in the ass to use on touchscreen devices so you need an interface more tailored to touchscreens which the modern UI is good at. Their only issue was making it the default on desktops.
Earlier attempts at putting Windows such as CE/Mobile or whatever on a phone such as the Compaq iPaq tried to reproduce the Windows UI with the start menu, task bar and so on. It was awful. I think the tiles on Windows Phone 8 actually work pretty well but there are no windows. It doesn't look like Windows.
That's just branding, he was obviously referring to Windows Phone since he called out specifically the Nokia 520 which has Windows Phone and that OS does not have windows (as in the UI paradigm). Not to mention he said "Windows on a phone works pretty well", again clearly referring to the operating system rather than the UI paradigm.
I would think most computer-literate people (which I thought would be the people here though they seem to be screaming the loudest) that are using a keyboard/mouse would be using search rather than scrolling/browsing menus. Whether it's OS X or Windows I find search to be the most efficient way to launch programs. I can understand some of the indoctrinated Windows users struggling with the removal of the start menu (it's a product of the mainstream computing era of Win 95-7) but I certainly wouldn't think many others would have a problem with it, it didn't exist pre-95 and doesn't on other platforms (even though there are some start menu -style implementations on some Linux distros).
"Windows on a phone works pretty well"
Windows on a phone is crap - did you ever try the Compaq iPaq?
You do realize you are comparing completely different operating systems with different core and UI and completely different hardware with over a decade between them and different input mechanisms don't you? I don't see how you expect to draw any meaningful conclusion comparing a 14 year old iPaq to a 1 year old Nokia 520 when they have virtually nothing in common apart from the word "Windows" being part of the title of their operating system.
Powershell is a bloated monster and is most definitely not an advertisement for Windows Server.
How is that? I'm not a server admin and I haven't really had any experience with PowerShell - I've written a lot of Bash though :) - but I'm just interested.
How is it not desperation when Microsoft has to start giving away their flagship mobile OS because no one wants it?
It's not necessarily desperation to realise that licensing costs are a barrier to entry and to find alternate ways to cover costs.
Or that they're FINALLY bringing back something resembling a proper desktop UI instead of their ridiculous fisher-price ATM interface that they had forced on people, and in the process added insult to injury on an already flagging computer market.
Ok let's be serious, the only thing they really brought back was the start menu. If that's what you consider necessary to being a desktop UI then you probably haven't had much experience with computers outside Windows 95 - 7, the desktop paradigm was broadly used long before anything resembling the start menu came into existence. I use a computer to use applications and none of the applications I use have this modern UI (probably because it didn't exist prior to Windows 8) so as far as my work was concerned I didn't notice much difference with Windows 8, the biggest change was the absence of the start menu though I mostly use OS X and Linux so even on Windows I tended not to use the start menu anyway.
You missed Surfing the Internet was ultimately Surfing the Internet ;)
Not to mention that harm to Mozilla is obviously going to harm all of those Mozilla employees that spoke out about their concerns, probably moreso than it will to Eich. I agree, blatant publicity stunt.
The other desktop clients with exchange support range from bearable to broken.
In what ways exactly?
But "Outlook" + "Outlook Home and Student" is in the same ball park as Office Standard VLA; with a fraction the licensing grief. So businesses that want office will pay the delta for outlook.
Except when they don't need Outlook, but you insist that all businesses require Outlook which is absolute rubbish.
Like what else are you credibly going to replace outlook with on the desktop? Apple Mail? Kmail? Thunderbird with ExQuilla?
So what you're telling me is you actually believe there is no desktop mail client other than Outlook that supports Calendars, Email and Contacts properly but the mobile clients do.
I don't need to portray as irreplaceable and unmatched. Its users do that.
Actually it's exactly what you are doing.
I hate April fools on the internet... April fools only works in person, it is just dumb and possibly dangerous on the internet.
Posted by Unknown Lamer on Monday March 31, 2014 @11:58PM
Why not? Its decent access to Exchange from a smartphone.
If decent access to Exchange is what you need then you don't need Outlook either.
What precisely do -you- think businesses need Outlook for?
I just asked you that question.
At minimum: Calendar, Contacts, Email - all synchronized to the server and desktop and phone.
Outlook is just a client (like the many other mail clients) and it doesn't synchronize your email to your phone, that has nothing to do with Outlook nor does it matter whether you use Outlook as your email client for an Exchange server, you can use any email client that supports Exchange.
Again... what precisely do -you- think businesses need outlook for?
Calendars, Email and Contacts. None of which are exclusive to Outlook.
But this is all irrelevant anyway because Outlook is not tied to Office, you can purchase Outlook individually at a fraction of the cost of Office. If you have ignorantly believed whatever the MS sales people tell you then you can still have Outlook and use whatever office suite you want. I can't see why you're so desperate to portray Outlook as some irreplaceable and unmatched product that is essential to businesses.