No other runtime is as far behind on new features either. Whenever a company introduces new features in their products this feature then has to be exposed through a web API, then go through a standardization process, then be implemented in other companies products and also exposed through that same standardized web API. The reality is that this takes so long that web apps are never on the cutting edge and by the time a particular API is standardized there are various vendor-specific implementations of it that then need to be supported too.
You keep saying that it does, yet you have presented absolutely no proof. None whatsoever.
Here, proof that not only do you not know what you are talking about but you are also incapable of using google. So you haven't even tried the thing you are so opposed to, your arguments are invalid.
Do you even click on the links I provided? It seems your response to everyone thing is "Uh-uh. Not it's not," but don't seem to provide any proof. Watch the video. The settings menu takes the entire screen. This is a fact.
What? If you want to change a setting in Win 8, you have to use Metro. Even if you could use third party software to replicate functions of Win8, that's even worse as it you had to use third party software to do things that the OS should have done.
What setting? If you had actually used it - which you haven't - you would know that settings can still be changed through the control panel just like on Windows 7, so again your argument is invalid.
I don't use ANY of those programs. It seems that all your responses to criticisms about Win8 is that since it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be true. The real world out there with everyday users disagrees with you. Design experts disagree with you.
It doesn't matter, that is proof that your assertion that Windows 8 insists every program runs fullscreen is false. But what programs do you use? Hrm? What programs do you use that Windows 8 requires you now run fullscreen? Oh right you've never used it before which is why you're making such stupid claims, fool. Your responses clearly demonstrate that you haven't even used it, so why would you purport to be knowledgeable on something that you clearly are not?
You want free software _foundations_ to fund high school courses?
Well to produce a curriculum and courseware, it's all a valuable contribution to furthering the cause.
Perhaps the companies that use free software could... you know, like Red Hat (oh... they do?), IBM (wait, they do too?), and Microsoft (wait a minute....).
In that case perhaps they need to get into high schools too, or maybe they already are.
The whole fucking reason for this 'free' offer is to keep alternatives out of Australian schools.
What alternatives? Does Apple or the Free Software Foundation or the Linux Foundation offer some sort of training like this? If not then maybe they should, Apple certainly offers their products at significant student discounts and companies like Adobe do similar things. They invest in things like this and perhaps the Free Software crowd needs to as well?
How about the Australian educational establishment coming up with their own material, like they used do it BM, that is before Microsoft.
This isn't about the certs as much as it is getting kids programmed to use Microsoft products.
Granted they will learn on Microsoft products but many of the skills and concepts will be easily translatable to other products, the real question is why hasn't the Linux foundation (or any of the other free software foundations) gotten in on funding and providing courseware for high schoolers?
Just look at the ridiculous amount of money spent every year on patent litigation. When you take away the ability to harass competition through patent trolling, tech companies will need to put most of it into innovating in order to stay relevant, with the biggest threats coming from small startups. I rest my case.
So that money will go from employing lawyers to employing engineers, now I agree that is certainly a better use of funds but it still doesn't provide any kind of suggestion that this would somehow create millions of jobs. In fact most patent litigation results in a profit sharing agreement between the patent holder and the licensee so it is hardly preventing millions of jobs from being created.
For what it's worth I agree with your point of view and I believe there does need to be patent reform but you need to make a convincing argument for it which is why I'm wondering if you did and if so what was it and to whom?
If you are concerned not about the product but the actions of those associated - but not directly involved with - the team who made the product even when those actions have nothing to do with the product then which company provides products you do use? It can't be Microsoft or Apple or Google or Canonical or Amazon or pretty much any company.
I buy the argument that you don't want to support the actions of companies engaging in the sort of behavior you find reprehensible and that is valid but really the approach to that should be to not support the products involved (in your case Windows Phone, and perhaps those manufacturers who have agreed to pay royalties, if Samsung really believed they were without merit I don't think a behemoth like that would knuckle under). If not then the list of companies you can support is pretty short.
That's might be a tweak on your system but MS says nothing about "right-click". So either you have customization on your system or you are fibbing.
No, and this demonstrates that you have not even used Windows 8 and therefore do not know what you are talking about, so just stop your idiocy. For changing the desktop wallpaper you can go through the steps outlined in the link or you can do it exactly as you do on Windows 7 which is to right-click the desktop and click "Personalize". But you haven't even used it which is why you don't know this.
So you have to remember something on a video instead of having a feature self-discoverable. What kind of idiocy is that in a GUI? What if it's not your computer?
Yes, just like any training but once you've learned it it's easy, in fact in 8.1 they added additional visual cues to help with this.
Wow. It seems you've never used Win 8. Everything I open on Win 8 takes the entire damn screen. Just watch this video on how to change the desktop as one example. The settings menu takes the whole damn screen.
Wrong again, if you want to use Windows 8-specific stuff - which is the Metro UI - then yes that stuff is full screen, but why would you want to do that? There's no need to do that, it's optional, if you want to just use the applications like you did on Windows 7 then they work in exactly the same way. So again, what programs did you use on Windows 7 that forces fullscreen on Windows 8? Photoshop? Lightroom? AutoCAD? Nope, all work the same as Windows 7.
In other words, let's sacrifice millions of new jobs so that a handful of megacorporations with a few hundred thousand employees can keep their ridiculously huge profits. "Too big to fail" at its finest.
No it isn't that at all, this idea of "millions of new jobs" is baseless, if you provably can make the case for it then obviously that will get significant attention...so the question is: did you?
Take the item from today's main page, IBM and MS oppose a part of a bill.
Say for the sake of argument that I and another developer friend support that bill.
4 "persons" involved, but my voice and my friend's voice is rendered inconsequential by IBM and MS's voice.
Why is that OK?
Look at it from the perspective of those running the country, IBM and MS support the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of their employees, they contribute billions to the economy and have hundreds of thousands of shareholders which includes active traders, long term investors and retirement funds. It isn't 4 "persons" involved because corporations are not people, but they are often representative of many people.
The "so what" is that they have a darned good whack at drowning out all voices but their own. Inherently undemocratic.
Money as speech seems, to me, to be taking us closer and closer to an authoritarian system.
So if there actually are enough people/organizations with opposing views they need to band together to have those views heard. When the people making the decisions about running the country are confronted by a bunch of huge corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people, have hundreds of thousands of citizens as shareholders and contribute billions to the economy say "this will be bad for us" it obviously needs to be countered with an even greater economical argument by a considerable amount of citizens.
If you are going to just sit back and do nothing to counter the position of those with opposing views then don't be surprised when your position isn't adopted.
Have you actually worked with Win 8 because it doesn't seem like you have? Win 8 has many subtle and not so subtle changes. For example changing the desktop wallpaper. Windows since forever: Right click on the desktop and then select option. On Win 7 they named it "Personalize" but XP and before "Properties".
Changing the desktop wallpaper on Windows 8 is exactly the same as on Windows 7, right-click and select 'Personalize'.
First of all there is no visual clue that the right corner does anything. Users have to remember it.
There's a video tutorial when you first log in.
Then there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen ignoring that uses for decades have had windows which they could resize individually. It's like MS forgot about these things called "windows" in a product named "Windows".
ummm....no, that's just wrong. What applications were you using on Windows 7 that Windows 8 requires you to run fullscreen? I think you would be hard pressed to find one much less "every", all the applications I used on Windows 7 work the same on Windows 8.
Given that the Surface Pro can run Linux and nobody seems to have done much with it the question seems pretty irrelevant...what is it you actually want to run Linux on it for? Wouldn't you just be better off getting an Android tablet?
If you're really that paranoid then turn it off at the power switch. But honestly that probably means you're too paranoid to use any internet-connected device with a camera in it either.
Don't get me started on much Win 8 retraining will cost.
Beyond demonstrating the difference between launching programs from the start screen vs the start menu and the shutdown procedure I doubt it's going to make much of a difference the majority of people. It's not like your applications suddenly work different.
FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal.
You also have to spend on support and maintenace, whether that is you managing a development team internally or whether you contract development work out to 3rd parties.
For god's sake it was one person giving his opinion on their updating practices, it was then clarified by Mint that those package updates can be enabled through enabling of Unsafe and Dangerous update sets, the Update Manager Preferences do not make it clear that this could potentially include critical security updates so if this means people are now better informed and will now get critical security updates for kernel and xorg then that is a good thing. Why are so many people blowing this out of proportion? Do they really believe there is that much childish hate in these communities that every little negative comment - uninformed or not - is an attack on eachother?
Slashdot Mirror
No other runtime is as far behind on new features either. Whenever a company introduces new features in their products this feature then has to be exposed through a web API, then go through a standardization process, then be implemented in other companies products and also exposed through that same standardized web API. The reality is that this takes so long that web apps are never on the cutting edge and by the time a particular API is standardized there are various vendor-specific implementations of it that then need to be supported too.
Meh. That's just a matter of getting people to stop fighting.
If only we had your insights in all the other wars across history, never realized the answer was so simple.
You keep saying that it does, yet you have presented absolutely no proof. None whatsoever.
Here, proof that not only do you not know what you are talking about but you are also incapable of using google. So you haven't even tried the thing you are so opposed to, your arguments are invalid.
Do you even click on the links I provided? It seems your response to everyone thing is "Uh-uh. Not it's not," but don't seem to provide any proof. Watch the video. The settings menu takes the entire screen. This is a fact.
The settings screen isn't even in Windows 7 you idiot, it was an addition in Windows 8. You obviously have never even used the OS as you stated there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen, which is again demonstrably false.
What? If you want to change a setting in Win 8, you have to use Metro. Even if you could use third party software to replicate functions of Win8, that's even worse as it you had to use third party software to do things that the OS should have done.
What setting? If you had actually used it - which you haven't - you would know that settings can still be changed through the control panel just like on Windows 7, so again your argument is invalid.
I don't use ANY of those programs. It seems that all your responses to criticisms about Win8 is that since it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be true. The real world out there with everyday users disagrees with you. Design experts disagree with you.
It doesn't matter, that is proof that your assertion that Windows 8 insists every program runs fullscreen is false. But what programs do you use? Hrm? What programs do you use that Windows 8 requires you now run fullscreen? Oh right you've never used it before which is why you're making such stupid claims, fool. Your responses clearly demonstrate that you haven't even used it, so why would you purport to be knowledgeable on something that you clearly are not?
You want free software _foundations_ to fund high school courses?
Well to produce a curriculum and courseware, it's all a valuable contribution to furthering the cause.
Perhaps the companies that use free software could... you know, like Red Hat (oh... they do?), IBM (wait, they do too?), and Microsoft (wait a minute....).
In that case perhaps they need to get into high schools too, or maybe they already are.
The whole fucking reason for this 'free' offer is to keep alternatives out of Australian schools.
What alternatives? Does Apple or the Free Software Foundation or the Linux Foundation offer some sort of training like this? If not then maybe they should, Apple certainly offers their products at significant student discounts and companies like Adobe do similar things. They invest in things like this and perhaps the Free Software crowd needs to as well?
How about the Australian educational establishment coming up with their own material, like they used do it BM, that is before Microsoft.
What makes you think that would be any different?
I understand brand loyalty but this is about training users for the workplace, the workplace doesn't adapt to graduates, it's the other way around.
So you think the idea here is that companies will change their products to microsoft ones to suit the graduates?
This isn't about the certs as much as it is getting kids programmed to use Microsoft products.
Granted they will learn on Microsoft products but many of the skills and concepts will be easily translatable to other products, the real question is why hasn't the Linux foundation (or any of the other free software foundations) gotten in on funding and providing courseware for high schoolers?
Just look at the ridiculous amount of money spent every year on patent litigation. When you take away the ability to harass competition through patent trolling, tech companies will need to put most of it into innovating in order to stay relevant, with the biggest threats coming from small startups. I rest my case.
So that money will go from employing lawyers to employing engineers, now I agree that is certainly a better use of funds but it still doesn't provide any kind of suggestion that this would somehow create millions of jobs. In fact most patent litigation results in a profit sharing agreement between the patent holder and the licensee so it is hardly preventing millions of jobs from being created.
For what it's worth I agree with your point of view and I believe there does need to be patent reform but you need to make a convincing argument for it which is why I'm wondering if you did and if so what was it and to whom?
If you are concerned not about the product but the actions of those associated - but not directly involved with - the team who made the product even when those actions have nothing to do with the product then which company provides products you do use? It can't be Microsoft or Apple or Google or Canonical or Amazon or pretty much any company.
I buy the argument that you don't want to support the actions of companies engaging in the sort of behavior you find reprehensible and that is valid but really the approach to that should be to not support the products involved (in your case Windows Phone, and perhaps those manufacturers who have agreed to pay royalties, if Samsung really believed they were without merit I don't think a behemoth like that would knuckle under). If not then the list of companies you can support is pretty short.
That's might be a tweak on your system but MS says nothing about "right-click". So either you have customization on your system or you are fibbing.
No, and this demonstrates that you have not even used Windows 8 and therefore do not know what you are talking about, so just stop your idiocy. For changing the desktop wallpaper you can go through the steps outlined in the link or you can do it exactly as you do on Windows 7 which is to right-click the desktop and click "Personalize". But you haven't even used it which is why you don't know this.
So you have to remember something on a video instead of having a feature self-discoverable. What kind of idiocy is that in a GUI? What if it's not your computer?
Yes, just like any training but once you've learned it it's easy, in fact in 8.1 they added additional visual cues to help with this.
Wow. It seems you've never used Win 8. Everything I open on Win 8 takes the entire damn screen. Just watch this video on how to change the desktop as one example. The settings menu takes the whole damn screen.
Wrong again, if you want to use Windows 8-specific stuff - which is the Metro UI - then yes that stuff is full screen, but why would you want to do that? There's no need to do that, it's optional, if you want to just use the applications like you did on Windows 7 then they work in exactly the same way. So again, what programs did you use on Windows 7 that forces fullscreen on Windows 8? Photoshop? Lightroom? AutoCAD? Nope, all work the same as Windows 7.
In other words, let's sacrifice millions of new jobs so that a handful of megacorporations with a few hundred thousand employees can keep their ridiculously huge profits. "Too big to fail" at its finest.
No it isn't that at all, this idea of "millions of new jobs" is baseless, if you provably can make the case for it then obviously that will get significant attention...so the question is: did you?
I am in the USA, and that is supposed to be the citizenry.
No it is supposed to be the people you have elected to represent the citizenry, obviously you aren't going to a referendum on every single issue.
It should not be about the money, it should be about democracy. Sustaining and maintaining and defending it. We are selling it a bit at a time.
What are you selling? And to whom? And for what? If people's livelihood didn't depend on money then obviously people wouldn't care so much about it.
Take the item from today's main page, IBM and MS oppose a part of a bill.
Say for the sake of argument that I and another developer friend support that bill.
4 "persons" involved, but my voice and my friend's voice is rendered inconsequential by IBM and MS's voice.
Why is that OK?
Look at it from the perspective of those running the country, IBM and MS support the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of their employees, they contribute billions to the economy and have hundreds of thousands of shareholders which includes active traders, long term investors and retirement funds. It isn't 4 "persons" involved because corporations are not people, but they are often representative of many people.
The "so what" is that they have a darned good whack at drowning out all voices but their own. Inherently undemocratic. Money as speech seems, to me, to be taking us closer and closer to an authoritarian system.
So if there actually are enough people/organizations with opposing views they need to band together to have those views heard. When the people making the decisions about running the country are confronted by a bunch of huge corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people, have hundreds of thousands of citizens as shareholders and contribute billions to the economy say "this will be bad for us" it obviously needs to be countered with an even greater economical argument by a considerable amount of citizens.
If you are going to just sit back and do nothing to counter the position of those with opposing views then don't be surprised when your position isn't adopted.
Yeah, what's your point?
Have you actually worked with Win 8 because it doesn't seem like you have? Win 8 has many subtle and not so subtle changes. For example changing the desktop wallpaper. Windows since forever: Right click on the desktop and then select option. On Win 7 they named it "Personalize" but XP and before "Properties" .
Changing the desktop wallpaper on Windows 8 is exactly the same as on Windows 7, right-click and select 'Personalize'.
First of all there is no visual clue that the right corner does anything. Users have to remember it.
There's a video tutorial when you first log in.
Then there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen ignoring that uses for decades have had windows which they could resize individually. It's like MS forgot about these things called "windows" in a product named "Windows".
ummm....no, that's just wrong. What applications were you using on Windows 7 that Windows 8 requires you to run fullscreen? I think you would be hard pressed to find one much less "every", all the applications I used on Windows 7 work the same on Windows 8.
Given that the Surface Pro can run Linux and nobody seems to have done much with it the question seems pretty irrelevant...what is it you actually want to run Linux on it for? Wouldn't you just be better off getting an Android tablet?
If you're really that paranoid then turn it off at the power switch. But honestly that probably means you're too paranoid to use any internet-connected device with a camera in it either.
Interesting, if done right, it could be a decent desktop replacement (I assume one isn't locked into UEFI secure boot on x86.)
Windows certification requires SecureBoot be optional and to provide the ability to turn it off, even Microsoft's own Surface Pro allows this.
Don't get me started on much Win 8 retraining will cost.
Beyond demonstrating the difference between launching programs from the start screen vs the start menu and the shutdown procedure I doubt it's going to make much of a difference the majority of people. It's not like your applications suddenly work different.
Meh... maybe.
FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal.
You also have to spend on support and maintenace, whether that is you managing a development team internally or whether you contract development work out to 3rd parties.
Yeah and today is so yesterday, like, get with the times!
Desktops/laptops are not 100% of the world's computers!
Until an anti-trust lawsuit comes along.
For god's sake it was one person giving his opinion on their updating practices, it was then clarified by Mint that those package updates can be enabled through enabling of Unsafe and Dangerous update sets, the Update Manager Preferences do not make it clear that this could potentially include critical security updates so if this means people are now better informed and will now get critical security updates for kernel and xorg then that is a good thing. Why are so many people blowing this out of proportion? Do they really believe there is that much childish hate in these communities that every little negative comment - uninformed or not - is an attack on eachother?