2-3 monitors in a console situation. It is a small niche. A niche that Windows 8 doesn't do well. And quite frankly may not matter that much. Most of the workstation market (i.e. high end) has already gone Apple / OSX losing the rest is not a substantial threat for now. Longer term they may want to better support it, but they have to pick their battles and your use case isn't one they are going to prioritize.
I don't want an app store at all. Microsoft does to make money. It is a shill for MS and again it does nothing for me.
It doesn't do anything for you yet. What an app store does is centralize the cost of: accounts payable, some advertising, support, distribution, updates.... That reduces end user cost and frustration and makes end users more able and more likely to buy inexpensive applications. That allows for the creation of applications that fill small niches for very small amounts of money ($.99, $3.99, etc..). The availability of those sorts of applications does do something for you.
Different has to be better or at least not moving in reverse. You are giving me inferior work arounds to get to features I had in 7.
Let me help out with something. Desktop is legacy. Microsoft's strategy is going to be to move you along with their entire ecosystem away from it towards the "metro" interface and ubiquitous computing. In general your use of the legacy system will continue to get less pleasant and less functional as the years progress. If your goal is to use the legacy system, everything from here on out will get worse not better and you should stop with Windows 7. Now you have the memo.
And maybe then you should use an OS designed for your little niche and not expect the vast majority of people who don't have such a setup to have their operating system designed around your needs.
No you can't get it back. The idea of the ribbon is to allow for context sensitive menus. That is to allow for menus with tens of thousands of items with only a few hundred appearing at any one time. Static menus aren't going to allow for that. Ribbon is an intermediate step towards a new and much more complete menu system.
At some point, MS is going to drop support for Win7, and we'll basically be forced to switch to a newer version or some other OS entirely. Guess which route most of us will go
You'll cave is what route most of you will go. You'll gripe you'll complain, you'll whine and you will buy Windows 9 along with modern hardware. Now that doesn't mean that might now be enough to create a viable market for Linux in offering a 90s style desktop experience. Even a few percent will be a very exploitable niche. But there is no question where "most" will go.
In short, I want Windows 7. And if five years from now that means I have to run Linux to get it, I damned well will.
That's fair. One of Linux's niche may very well be the people who don't like the new interfaces. It might turn out that KDE, LXDE, XFCE, Mate... become incredibly popular alternatives for the "I hate moving away from the 90s desktop paradigm crowd". I'm not sure how large this group is but it might be quite large.
malkavian I don't agree with your comments about DOS vs. UNIX "in the day" the machines weren't really comparable. But in terms of Windows 8, it makes sense on hardware that was designed for tablet / keyboard mode: dual mode laptops. For servers the Metro UI is not going to be ideal. Most likely what you will have is something more like common on UNIX where you as an admin will run an administrative console which runs applications which feed commands to the servers. The administrative console will be a touchscreen / laptop or tablet or... (Think about how Oracle works with its different admin consoles).
In terms of install or completely misconfigured, The GUIs for server apps can be truly basic and there is no good reason that any GUI toolkit can't support them. Metro isn't going to matter.
The strategy that would work would be to have an API that works across all the forms (tablet, kiosk, desktop) with a GUI that you can swap between depending on your needs..
That is Metro. That's what they are doing. The only difference is the applications need to be able to respond to the form factor so the applications and OS are in control (mostly) and not the user.
And that's the truly evil move from Apple - raise the false hope that the kids could be using anything but Windows at work.
I get to use a Mac at work in well over 1/2 my jobs for the last decade. When I was in school work computers were mostly dumb terminals connected to a mini or mainframe. Getting PC experience wasn't too detrimental.
I don't have a problem with the ability to disable a sandbox. I'm not arguing for that. I'm arguing that sandboxing is a very good idea despite Oracle having a tough time. That being said Javascript is far too important for now to be an optional. If Firefox's Javascript sandbox were to start sucking then the response should be to immediately change browsers.
Microsoft's direction is to share applications. You are right that right now they aren't quite there yet. But they goal is to pull this all towards one set of applications that adjust to form factor of the device: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a6cNdhOKwi0
Everyone else is just going for data sharing. If Microsoft is right about ubiquitous computing it will be a huge push in their direction. If they are wrong then likely it will harm both platforms. Or it may be that some customers like and others don't.
If you want a 90s style desktop then run 90s software with a 90s style OS. That's not the direction of the future. But Windows 7 will be there for a while and Mate after that.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. At the time when Palladium was in the Longhorn pipeline the whole goal was that features wouldn't effectively boot without being part of the locked down operating system. So the OS would boot but the DRM subsystem wouldn't work on actual content. Effectively this was policy.
I think you are wrong. Apple likes their machines to be able to boot Microsoft OSes it is a selling point for them. So Microsoft will be one of the keys installed. They might pay the $99 to get their OSX versions signed or have their own key.
The FSF should just create a key and start signing distributions.
Sooo.... Why do the different Linux distributions need to get MS to accept those shims again ? I mean, they do not go that troublesome way for nothing.
Because they want to be able to boot on systems that haven't disabled secure boot and haven't installed another key.
Microsoft wants to stop root kits. They want to be able to offer secure environments for DRM content. Microsoft doesn't care about people who want to boot Linux at all. So they are fine signing those because that customer base will self support on root kits. Where is the conflict? That only defeats the point if you start by assuming that Microsoft was lying about their intentions. If you start by assuming that everyone was telling the truth and there is no big conspiracy then it is perfectly fine.
Slashdot Mirror
2-3 monitors in a console situation. It is a small niche. A niche that Windows 8 doesn't do well. And quite frankly may not matter that much. Most of the workstation market (i.e. high end) has already gone Apple / OSX losing the rest is not a substantial threat for now. Longer term they may want to better support it, but they have to pick their battles and your use case isn't one they are going to prioritize.
It doesn't do anything for you yet. What an app store does is centralize the cost of: accounts payable, some advertising, support, distribution, updates.... That reduces end user cost and frustration and makes end users more able and more likely to buy inexpensive applications. That allows for the creation of applications that fill small niches for very small amounts of money ($.99, $3.99, etc..). The availability of those sorts of applications does do something for you.
Let me help out with something. Desktop is legacy. Microsoft's strategy is going to be to move you along with their entire ecosystem away from it towards the "metro" interface and ubiquitous computing. In general your use of the legacy system will continue to get less pleasant and less functional as the years progress. If your goal is to use the legacy system, everything from here on out will get worse not better and you should stop with Windows 7. Now you have the memo.
And maybe then you should use an OS designed for your little niche and not expect the vast majority of people who don't have such a setup to have their operating system designed around your needs.
No you can't get it back. The idea of the ribbon is to allow for context sensitive menus. That is to allow for menus with tens of thousands of items with only a few hundred appearing at any one time. Static menus aren't going to allow for that. Ribbon is an intermediate step towards a new and much more complete menu system.
You'll cave is what route most of you will go. You'll gripe you'll complain, you'll whine and you will buy Windows 9 along with modern hardware. Now that doesn't mean that might now be enough to create a viable market for Linux in offering a 90s style desktop experience. Even a few percent will be a very exploitable niche. But there is no question where "most" will go.
That's fair. One of Linux's niche may very well be the people who don't like the new interfaces. It might turn out that KDE, LXDE, XFCE, Mate... become incredibly popular alternatives for the "I hate moving away from the 90s desktop paradigm crowd". I'm not sure how large this group is but it might be quite large.
No that's not the only reason. Their push towards ubiquitous computing was fully in place by 2011. The store idea didn't solidify until 2012.
Then why are you trying to get to DOS shell?
malkavian I don't agree with your comments about DOS vs. UNIX "in the day" the machines weren't really comparable. But in terms of Windows 8, it makes sense on hardware that was designed for tablet / keyboard mode: dual mode laptops. For servers the Metro UI is not going to be ideal. Most likely what you will have is something more like common on UNIX where you as an admin will run an administrative console which runs applications which feed commands to the servers. The administrative console will be a touchscreen / laptop or tablet or... (Think about how Oracle works with its different admin consoles).
In terms of install or completely misconfigured, The GUIs for server apps can be truly basic and there is no good reason that any GUI toolkit can't support them. Metro isn't going to matter.
That is Metro. That's what they are doing. The only difference is the applications need to be able to respond to the form factor so the applications and OS are in control (mostly) and not the user.
I get to use a Mac at work in well over 1/2 my jobs for the last decade. When I was in school work computers were mostly dumb terminals connected to a mini or mainframe. Getting PC experience wasn't too detrimental.
I don't have a problem with the ability to disable a sandbox. I'm not arguing for that. I'm arguing that sandboxing is a very good idea despite Oracle having a tough time. That being said Javascript is far too important for now to be an optional. If Firefox's Javascript sandbox were to start sucking then the response should be to immediately change browsers.
Microsoft's direction is to share applications. You are right that right now they aren't quite there yet. But they goal is to pull this all towards one set of applications that adjust to form factor of the device: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a6cNdhOKwi0
Everyone else is just going for data sharing. If Microsoft is right about ubiquitous computing it will be a huge push in their direction. If they are wrong then likely it will harm both platforms. Or it may be that some customers like and others don't.
Quite a lot of sandboxes have done well. Just because Oracle's sucked does not mean all sandboxes have to suck.
Good show. I stand corrected.
If you want a 90s style desktop then run 90s software with a 90s style OS. That's not the direction of the future. But Windows 7 will be there for a while and Mate after that.
Yes obviously I don't understand. So where are these references to revocation mechanisms?
That has nothing to do with running anything. It is going to be a UEFI procedure the OS shouldn't be able to change it.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. At the time when Palladium was in the Longhorn pipeline the whole goal was that features wouldn't effectively boot without being part of the locked down operating system. So the OS would boot but the DRM subsystem wouldn't work on actual content. Effectively this was policy.
That's not Apple's fault. They aren't doing anything unusual. That's the fault of Linux for not keeping up with spec hardware.
I think you are wrong. Apple likes their machines to be able to boot Microsoft OSes it is a selling point for them. So Microsoft will be one of the keys installed. They might pay the $99 to get their OSX versions signed or have their own key.
The FSF should just create a key and start signing distributions.
You can install your own keys.
There is no revocation. Once code is signed to a particular key, it is signed forever.
Because they want to be able to boot on systems that haven't disabled secure boot and haven't installed another key.
No they are going to sign a few version of boot loaders and then not care about the rest.
Microsoft wants to stop root kits. They want to be able to offer secure environments for DRM content. Microsoft doesn't care about people who want to boot Linux at all. So they are fine signing those because that customer base will self support on root kits. Where is the conflict? That only defeats the point if you start by assuming that Microsoft was lying about their intentions. If you start by assuming that everyone was telling the truth and there is no big conspiracy then it is perfectly fine.