Personally I do it because one of my tasks at work is to maintain installers, and for performance reasons we pre-install to a subdirectory using chroot, tar up the subdirectory and put it on a CD. (This is for installation on many identical machines) In the past I have done it to set up UML (User Mode Linux) systems. I have done it using both RPM/YaST, and dpkg/APT.
Giving old apps the equivalent of a chroot jail would solve the compatibility problem for older apps with hardcoded paths, allowing them to implement real security for new apps.
Apparently they don't employ anybody that has used a computer in the last three decades though.
BTW, when was the last time you ran Synaptic or yum without su[do]?
Replace those commands with the equivalent for my distribution and the answer is "ten minutes ago".
This is no different from if you tried to delete a file on your Linux box that you didn't own. You would be forced to elevate your user to delete the file.
Actually it is different....
In a Unix shell when you run rm on a file you don't have permissions to delete it fails. It doesn't offer to help you screw up.
Yeah, you're argument isn't a strawman if you change your argument. (Actually it is, since your new argument includes a strawman too)
In reality it's neither as simple as your most recent comment or as my initial comment make it out to be. For example: A better net ROI doesn't necessarily make one decision better than another for many reasons. For example, a net increase in revenue with zero overall ROI will probably be a better choice for a venture backed startup than having the investors money earn interest in the market. But these are all ridiculous things to consider because they are outside of the context of the original discussion.
If the question is "Is it worth supporting a browser that has a non-majority market share?" without any additional data, the answer boils down to whether you will get more out of the support than you put into it. If you're going to presume options that aren't implied or mentioned directly in the question then why not ask whether they would be better off investing their development dollars in something other than a web application?
Actually, the answer is clear that unless you're strapped for cash, you do both.
Asking whether you should do one thing or the other when the two things aren't mutually exclusive makes for a great strawman in an argument, but has no bearing on reality.
The only one I can think of is that they don't want to have to give your money back when they realize their product is sub-standard.
It can't be the piracy thing, because why would you bother purchasing a copy and returning it to pirate music/software when you can just download it with the DRM already bypassed. It's interesting that they've gotten you to think that their bullshit lies about return policies are "obvious" though.
Is 1% of your expected revenue greater than the implementation costs of supporting multiple browser platforms?
For almost every site out there, the answer to this question is "Yes". If you are in that situation, it would pay for you to use technology that would work on all browsers, or have a browser specific page with equivalent functionality for non-IE browsers. You often see Slashdot comments in these types of threads that say the "extra 5% of the market is too small for the company to care about". Sure, 5% seems small, but the costs of developing cross-platform support for web applications is usually so low that you're throwing away free profit by ignoring even the least-used browsers.
There are other arguments too... Many IE specific features are annoying even if you are an IE user, Using technology that isn't standardized across the industry make maintenance more difficult across platform versions, etc... But really it comes down to the money.
and the waste from them lasts a helluva lot longer.
Really? Ignoring all the other nasty stuff we pump into the atmosphere to distribute at random across the landscape when we burn coal, care to explain what the half-life of atmospheric carbon dioxide is? How long does it last?
You don't need a national ID card for that, since your local DMV is a state agency, not a federal one.
In many states (without a national ID card) you don't need to go the DMV anymore for anything other than taking a driving test and getting that first photo of yourself taken.
It's everyone pointing out that, historically, porn was a factor in deciding new media decisions and adoption.
Based on a statistical sample size of one.
But, it is an inescapable fact that an incredible amount of porn is sold on DVDs each year, and, it rivals the Hollywood system in terms of volume and moneys involved.
The plain and simple truth is that the entire porn DVD market produces the annual revenue of a single Hollywood blockbuster DVD release. Just one. $200 million dollars or so and falling. Those figures that you see in the billions? Those include hotel room pay-per-view, strip club and escort service revenue, etc... It is *not* big enough to have a statistically significant impact on player sales.
iTunes, of course. The control software for the VoIP phone system we have here. Microsoft Outlook 2003 Business Contact Manager, McAffe Personal Firewall, and Daemon Tools.
Since installing Vista ultimate, my experience has been that less than half of software I used on XP which hasn't been updated specifically for Vista doesn't work. Many won't even install. It's going to take some time for the support to be reasonable.
You have a green light and you stop to let somebody make a right on red into your lane... The guy turning hits a pedestrian, and it's your fault for yielding the right of way. That's awesome. I hate that many drivers can't comprehend that "being nice" to somebody in their line of view probably means that they're being an asshole to the person behind them (assuming they're lucky enough not to get themselves rear-ended for being unpredictable).
The cost to produce a movie soundtrack CD (not the soundtrack itself, who's costs are already sunk. The movie needed the soundtrack even if there was no CD) probably come in around $500. That's one guy spending one day compressing the crap out of the music until it has no dynamic range, then having a glass master etched.
Then there's the cut of every unit sale that goes to the distributor (you favorite RIAA affiliate) because the music distributors won't let the movie studios use the music unless they use an RIAA company to distribute the CD, then there are the fees associated with including songs from different labels on a single disc, and then there is an insane amount of profit that goes to the distributors (not the creators of the content).
They'd probably make a ton more money if the soundtrack CD was a couple dollars when you purchase the DVD at the same time, and if it was distributed by the same company as the movie (which clearly has the capabilities)... But then they wouldn't be able to play the political games they play with price-fixed CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I do it because one of my tasks at work is to maintain installers, and for performance reasons we pre-install to a subdirectory using chroot, tar up the subdirectory and put it on a CD. (This is for installation on many identical machines) In the past I have done it to set up UML (User Mode Linux) systems. I have done it using both RPM/YaST, and dpkg/APT.
Giving old apps the equivalent of a chroot jail would solve the compatibility problem for older apps with hardcoded paths, allowing them to implement real security for new apps.
Apparently they don't employ anybody that has used a computer in the last three decades though.
BTW, when was the last time you ran Synaptic or yum without su[do]?
Replace those commands with the equivalent for my distribution and the answer is "ten minutes ago".
Actually it is different....
In a Unix shell when you run rm on a file you don't have permissions to delete it fails. It doesn't offer to help you screw up.
Yeah, you're argument isn't a strawman if you change your argument. (Actually it is, since your new argument includes a strawman too)
In reality it's neither as simple as your most recent comment or as my initial comment make it out to be. For example: A better net ROI doesn't necessarily make one decision better than another for many reasons. For example, a net increase in revenue with zero overall ROI will probably be a better choice for a venture backed startup than having the investors money earn interest in the market. But these are all ridiculous things to consider because they are outside of the context of the original discussion.
If the question is "Is it worth supporting a browser that has a non-majority market share?" without any additional data, the answer boils down to whether you will get more out of the support than you put into it. If you're going to presume options that aren't implied or mentioned directly in the question then why not ask whether they would be better off investing their development dollars in something other than a web application?
The RIAA is now offering a pre-settlement discount of 100% for customers of ISPs who agree not to keep DHCP logs beyond the current leases.
Actually, the answer is clear that unless you're strapped for cash, you do both.
Asking whether you should do one thing or the other when the two things aren't mutually exclusive makes for a great strawman in an argument, but has no bearing on reality.
You're not the bearer of bad news. You're just wrong and obnoxiously condescending.
Refusing refunds doesn't take those people into account, because those people can't figure out how to break the copy protection on their own.
Do you have any solution at all that takes these classes of people into account?
What is the obvious reason?
The only one I can think of is that they don't want to have to give your money back when they realize their product is sub-standard.
It can't be the piracy thing, because why would you bother purchasing a copy and returning it to pirate music/software when you can just download it with the DRM already bypassed. It's interesting that they've gotten you to think that their bullshit lies about return policies are "obvious" though.
Is 1% of your expected revenue greater than the implementation costs of supporting multiple browser platforms?
For almost every site out there, the answer to this question is "Yes". If you are in that situation, it would pay for you to use technology that would work on all browsers, or have a browser specific page with equivalent functionality for non-IE browsers. You often see Slashdot comments in these types of threads that say the "extra 5% of the market is too small for the company to care about". Sure, 5% seems small, but the costs of developing cross-platform support for web applications is usually so low that you're throwing away free profit by ignoring even the least-used browsers.
There are other arguments too... Many IE specific features are annoying even if you are an IE user, Using technology that isn't standardized across the industry make maintenance more difficult across platform versions, etc... But really it comes down to the money.
Fission is dirtier than Coal and Oil combined
Care to provide a reference?
and the waste from them lasts a helluva lot longer.
Really? Ignoring all the other nasty stuff we pump into the atmosphere to distribute at random across the landscape when we burn coal, care to explain what the half-life of atmospheric carbon dioxide is? How long does it last?
Ok... So instead of water we'll just drop in a hunk of dry ice instead. That won't cause any problems when it melts. ;)
The only negative impact will be on our ease of life until clean alternatives are developed.
Has time rewound to the point where we not yet developed nuclear fission power plants?
On the other hand, it can technically make us more secure.
How can it do that?
You don't need a national ID card for that, since your local DMV is a state agency, not a federal one.
In many states (without a national ID card) you don't need to go the DMV anymore for anything other than taking a driving test and getting that first photo of yourself taken.
I think we should take game ratings to the SquareSoft school of numbering.
This game would receive an 8000/9999.
It's everyone pointing out that, historically, porn was a factor in deciding new media decisions and adoption.
Based on a statistical sample size of one.
But, it is an inescapable fact that an incredible amount of porn is sold on DVDs each year, and, it rivals the Hollywood system in terms of volume and moneys involved.
The plain and simple truth is that the entire porn DVD market produces the annual revenue of a single Hollywood blockbuster DVD release. Just one. $200 million dollars or so and falling. Those figures that you see in the billions? Those include hotel room pay-per-view, strip club and escort service revenue, etc... It is *not* big enough to have a statistically significant impact on player sales.
That wooshing sound is the joke going right over your head.
So far I've had the following apps fail:
iTunes, of course. The control software for the VoIP phone system we have here. Microsoft Outlook 2003 Business Contact Manager, McAffe Personal Firewall, and Daemon Tools.
Yes. There is significantly less dot crawl.
Since installing Vista ultimate, my experience has been that less than half of software I used on XP which hasn't been updated specifically for Vista doesn't work. Many won't even install. It's going to take some time for the support to be reasonable.
My favorite part about New York traffic laws:
You have a green light and you stop to let somebody make a right on red into your lane... The guy turning hits a pedestrian, and it's your fault for yielding the right of way. That's awesome. I hate that many drivers can't comprehend that "being nice" to somebody in their line of view probably means that they're being an asshole to the person behind them (assuming they're lucky enough not to get themselves rear-ended for being unpredictable).
Yeah, but even the undercover cop would wait until you made a transaction before slapping the cuffs on you.
Are you serious?
The cost to produce a movie soundtrack CD (not the soundtrack itself, who's costs are already sunk. The movie needed the soundtrack even if there was no CD) probably come in around $500. That's one guy spending one day compressing the crap out of the music until it has no dynamic range, then having a glass master etched.
Then there's the cut of every unit sale that goes to the distributor (you favorite RIAA affiliate) because the music distributors won't let the movie studios use the music unless they use an RIAA company to distribute the CD, then there are the fees associated with including songs from different labels on a single disc, and then there is an insane amount of profit that goes to the distributors (not the creators of the content).
They'd probably make a ton more money if the soundtrack CD was a couple dollars when you purchase the DVD at the same time, and if it was distributed by the same company as the movie (which clearly has the capabilities)... But then they wouldn't be able to play the political games they play with price-fixed CDs.
You'd probably be surprised how many people actively bitch about the existence of child porn to their representative.