Yes, my capitalist pseudoargument is a bullshit because you disagree with it. It *IS* an argument, you just don't like it and perhaps you think everyone should do things exactly as you wish simply because you think it's important. You might also think that every product should have lots of laws governing how they are made and those companies should have legislation that manages everything they do.
You completely missed my point... if you don't want to have these things don't use it. Nobody is forcing people to use this phone just like nobody is forcing them to use Facebook. These companies, which are companies, sell you a service in which you pay a monthly fee to continue service. Who cares if it's retroactive? It's a service and service and privacy agreements get updated *all the time*. You pay for that service.
If AT&T tomorrow doubled its rates I would probably dump AT&T and sell my phone. Likewise, if you don't like the change, dump the phone and move on. I'm not trying to be a douche, but what promise was made to you or anybody else that these things would never change? Their previous agreement allowed them the ability to legally update it. I understand being upset but I was responding to opt-in and opt-out, and it's pretty simple - your dollars are your vote for you and how serious you are.
The last thing I want to see is a bunch of people up in arms saying we need laws to prevent this. I call BS on that. Nobody is forcing you to have a smartphone. Nobody is forcing you to use location services. And certainly, nobody is forcing you to have an iPhone. It's simple, and while that may sound brutal, that's the benefit of your ability to choose.
Also I disagree with your "rendering their devices useless" point. C'mon - not using location based services doesn't render the phone useless.
I don't believe this has anything to do with iPhone 4 - it's iOS, which you run jailbroken or not. I'm not baiting you here but why do you care about an anonymous account of your location?
Actually, there's an easy way to not agree and to opt-out and opt-in...
Don't buy the phone if this bothers you. That's the opt-out. Apple makes the phone and they have every right to do this. You, as the consumer, have every right not to buy that phone if you disagree with this. Nobody is forcing you. Could Apple make it more like Google (assuming Cory Doctorow is right)? Sure, but they chose not to. So consumers have to make an opt-in/opt-out decision: buy Apple or not.
My point is that we act like Apple is oppressing people with these policies. People either care or they don't. I don't care.
No, his point was he didn't see how Google makes money off of him. You don't have to buy things directly from Google for them to make money.
That was my point.
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment
on
Google's Insular Nature
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
This is a good example of uninformed posting.
To compare Google to a dotcom seems more a misunderstanding of what is going on than anything else. While you may not like Google, the value of their stock, how they conduct their business, or whatever else... you can't say it's not worth it.
For example, in my company, we find that nearly 80% of all software purchases start with Google. Not with someone else. Google. In a multibillion dollar industry, that's a lot of searches. We have a lot of money we send Google's way as well because of that.
While Google might not make dollars off of you, you haven't hit their target yet. But that's okay, because that's the beauty of their system.
We haven't even talked about mapping, local searches, etc. You don't see how people make money off of using using Google? You must be loco.
Who cares if they're secretive? It's better than goofy proclamations that always turn out wrong by the likes of Gates, Ellison, McNealy, or RMS. And the last time I checked, I didn't have to pay a dime to get a great amount of benefit from them.
"Sure.. why not? After you install Windows you get umm.. Windows. After a Windows install (even from an SP2 disk) I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them, do the Windows update, install software (Office suite, good instant messenger, graphics program, good CD burner app, etc..) and during hte process, hunt down a handful of real long alphanumeric strings that I get to enter to apparently show that I am worthy."
First, your advantage is comparing apples to oranges and you also have a nonsenical arguments thrown in for good measure.
WinXP installing on a PC has 99.9% of the drivers for most people - maybe not your frankenstein setup, but most boxes are plug and play install. You want newer drivers, you have to upgrade... the last time I checked on my FC3 box, I had to do the same if newer drivers were out. Also, with regards to things like bluetooth, wireless, and legacy laptops, FC is going to be a major pain in your ass over WinXP.
As far as installing software, what about if the tools you want and need don't come with FC4? What if you want certain products that aren't there? I guess I have to "search around" for them. This is, fundamentally, also a difference between Windows XP and FC4 - one is a distro with apps, and one is an OS. For a more fair comparison, maybe you should compare it to a preloaded software suite with a new box... at least then they tend to come with recovery cds. I'll bet it's really easy then!
Also, what alphanumeric strings are you referring to? This is BS - you're obviously referring to Activation, but in an uninformed backhanded attempt. In fact, on new machines, you simply have to click activate and hit Next. If you purchase WinXP separately, yes, you must "hunt down" the string from the sleeve of your CD case. Wow, don't hurt your back in the process you lazy bastard. This same process applies to many other software packages, and it's pretty easy/fast - especially if it's a new box preloaded.
"Now Fedora lets see.. install Fedora. Generally hardware detection is much better and my hardware is detected and configured properly (granted this could be due to the fact it is newer, but alias, Microsoft doesn't offer updated ISOs of WinXP for me to download.. so I think its fair.. latest release to latest release). Oh yah, it comes with the apps I need to use... so perhaps the quick step of updating *ALL* the software on my system to make sure its the latest versions (versus just Windows via Windows update and manually downloading for the rest..) I am pretty much done after installing Fedora."
Okay, so when Fedora Core 5 comes out, upgrade to it and let me know how that goes. You know, just update to the latest FC release. That should be easy since they don't test it or support it really.
Also, with regards to Microsoft not updating the ISOs. SP2 is now distributed as the base version of Windows, and updates over Windows Update is pretty easy. Couple that with Automatic Updates and it's pretty mindless for the average user. Regardless of if you like that or not, it's not "tough"
Let us all not forget that many years ago the video requirements of modern interfaces were substantially different than now. Things must progress and evolve. Interfaces will become heavier on some levels but easier on others, but you can clearly count on the advancements of technology to help OFFLOAD the strain to new devices and components. By Longhorn doing this, my guess is that my CPU will actually get less of a load on most things by making the graphics board do what it does better than a general purpose CPU.
You can't stop evolution simply because you can't keep up or you get comfortable.
I am consistently blown away by people who make comments like this:
"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"
Do you watch TV? Do you look at magazines? Style is here to stay my good friend. I don't know about you, but I DO care about what my OS looks like. If I wanted my OS to look and feel like a windowless brick room with flickering flourescent lighting, I'll skin it that way myself.
Do you even use modern software? Almost all of it is skinnable. Why do you think that's popular? Because people are bored? No, because modern software is generally an extension of your personality. My guess is yours is like vanilla ice cream.
On top of that, you are CLEARLY in the minority.
A couple scenarios: Do you drive an old beater for a car because it "does the job"? Do you live in a tiny room with an integrated flip down bed and sit on the floor to eat because it's a more efficient use of space? Do you wear burlap clothes because it seems more practical?
I'm sure you talk tough on computer crap, but you probably are wasteful in other areas. People like me DO care. I care about my car having the latest features. I care about my house being more than just a few walls with a ceiling. I care about personality and enjoying what I'm working with and where I live.
"But do I really need to get new hardware... for eye candy?"
Mr. Vanilla: Do you realize that every game id and Valve release sells new hardware? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't know because you're too busy with your CGA graphics board playing pong so you're not forced to "upgrade".
Rock on - now excuse me while I go play my 8-Track.
- Training is a continous process. People keep being trained no matter what their desktop is, because applications keep changing (otherwise people would be happily stuck with the oldest version of a given software). So if you are investing in training anyway, it does not stop you to do so in Linux based applications.
99% of the workforce is already substantially trained on Microsoft products. You're ignoring that - many people have Microsoft Office on their resumes and training on these systems is almost *always* bypassed unless needed.
-Deployment: please make my day, tell me that it did not cost you anything to migrate from W98 to W2K or WXP. Well, that cost would be in the same ball park if you do a Linux migration (knowing what you are doing of course). The big difference would be that you may have more power in your hands to decide when to migrate once you move to Linux. If your Linux provider begins to pester you with upgrading it very well would be cheaper to move to another Linux provider (since you are keeping your data and applications properly segragated and in standard formats, which are much easier to port in Linux thatn in Windows).
Most companies skip every other microsoft release and only then do they upgrade matching versions of Office. This is well known and documented and shows the enormous cost associated with migrating. Saying it would be in the same ballpark of cost ignores the cost of resources and the availability - in some areas it's not an issue, in others it's not. Don't BS me and act like that's not a fact.
-Support: dude, it takes 2 to 3 weeks to train a competent system administrator to RHCT or even RHCE (or any other accolade you may want to obtain for your SAs). If your Windows guys can't grasp a different computer system then I would bring into question the health of your IT support anyway. A professional SA can easily and confidently translate the skills learned in one platform to another. And since your company surely is providing regular, timely training anyway, you replace the WXP update with a RHCE and you are set. If you really need to you may hire one or 2 consultants to baby sit a migration, but once people are up to speed, what would be the problem?
Again, you ignore available resources, cost of training, and already existing skillsets. Yes, people can learn, but do you not comprehend that it takes time and money to train someone for 3 weeks? You seem to have no grasp that 3 weeks on 50 resources is not a minor thing.
Licensing costs are not as important, but neither are the points you tried to drag out into the open.
You have not "blown away" anything I've said. Instead, you've continued to persist the mentality that migrating 10,000 desktops is as simple as waving your hand. That's BS and you're either working for a small to medium sized business or have yet to ever be part of a big desktop upgrade/software deployment.
All boils down to a very simple matter: do you want to leave your IT infrastructure in the hands of a single company (which is not a trustworthy busines partner)?
I'm not arguing for using Microsoft, but this doesn't make people buy Linux either (and by "buy" I mean put their money where the resources are). That's a pretty tired argument to sell to a CIO when over the past few years IT spending was substantially cut due to the economy across the board. More IT projects were put on hold or cancelled and are just now starting to kick back in. This is the real world, not "yeah but we're not evil". Whatever.
Companies do want to lower costs, but all things require some level of skilled workers. So simply eliminating licensing costs does not mean something has a lower TCO. This is a very common misconception by people here on Slashdot - thinking that no licensing costs means no cost.
That's only part of the picture and here's why. You have support costs and contracts - that's why distributions like RH have enterprise versions. These are not free, but are generally considered a requirement for any large business. Second, you have resources to support training, installtion, and management of what you deploy. Imagine simply rolling out FC3 to 10,000 people in a business without training. These are people who have, like it or not, learned the Windows way of doing things, including the OS and Office. OpenOffice is not nearly the same, and neither is KDE.
So, first we have to train 10,000 people - well that involves training instructors or paying consultants to train. That also involves the cost of taking people to training and not working on things they normally could do. It's a loss in productivity, so you stage it over a year or so to reduce the impact to the business, possibly.
Now, we haven't even deployed yet - that involves physically touching 10,000 desktops and completely migrating them over to a new environment, and ensuring you haven't lost user data. If you've ever been part of one of these, you'll know that this is also timeconsuming and costly.
Last, then we support the releases, put in infrastructure to push new patches out (yes, Linux has plenty of them), and then managing those desktops as easily or easier than Windows. This can be expensive and the easier it is to manage bulk loads of desktops remotely, the better. Yes, you have this with Windows, but now you've got to either re-tool and existing staff that was probably Windows based before in server management or hire new people - depending on your geographic area, you may have less people skilled in those areas than you would with Windows simply because Microsoft is so prevalent.
The point is nothing is free because these are not single user instances at a person's home. Thinking that licensing costs are the major portion of desktop management is a fallacy. They may be when you're a small to medium sized company, or when you're starting from scratch, but the costs of migrating can be very problematic and require a lot of time.
My 40Gig iPod has about 100 megs of space left and that's with me already pulling things out from my collection. I want the 60GB model just for music... I have over 2000 CDs that I've been converting to MP3/AAC and that's... a lot of storage.
"It isn't. OpenOffice is derived from StarOffice, made by StarDivision Inc (now acquired by Sun). In other words: OpenOffice is derived from a commercial product! *Shock*, *shrudder*, commercial products are always designed by tons of usability experts and can never, ever be unusable junk like open source software, right? Right? If anything, your statement just proofed that commercial software can be just as bad, if not worse, at usability, which goes against common Slashdot sense that commercial software is always perfect and can never be unusable."
Okay a couple of things there. Somewhere along the line you created your own incorrect logical take on my original post.
Note that my entire post had NOTHING to do with OO.org being open source as to why it's technical, so you're barking up the wrong tree. Saying "nyah nyah, I like it and my other friend does too" is EXACTLY the kind of response that makes products sit and not be utilized. Also using this as a statement that commercial products can have usability is like saying rain is wet. Why do some products sell more than others though?
I never said OO.org was bad because it's open source or commercial. There are bad pieces of software out there on all sides and I simply said it's bad in usability compared to Office.
But one thing that won't help is to act like there's nothing wrong and be stubborn about it. Free software, REGARDLESS of origin, must be usable, appealing, and functional to have mass appeal. You can't just work on one.
"*Forget* about Desktop, its a straw man! Nobody gives a shit about desktop computing any more; the days of cubicle-bound misery-computing are numbered!"
Hrm. I think it's got a few years left in it, my friend. Giving up now to fight a future battle only puts you ahead of a curve that's not yet ready to be taken. Ask Apple - they've done a good job of this many times in the past, only to have others eat their lunch (Newton, QuickTake being a prime example).
No, I'm not a Linux geek by any means. I am certainly not a MSFT lover, but I'm a best tool for the job, and most of my job requires MSFT today. On that same thought, I've recently been getting into some open source things, and have even installed Linux pretty recently (just instaleld a MythTV box at my house!).
I've made the switch to Firefox completely - both at work and at my home. Why? It looks really nice, functions well, and was easy to get my wife switched over to as it functions pretty similar to tools she already knows. Hell, I've even switched some of my less technical friends over, and they love it. I didn't do this with Mozilla though - it just seemed "too much".
Now, on the other side, I finally broke down and installed OpenOffice to give it a shot. I thought, will this be the Office breaker I've heard about? No way. I can't stand it - it's clearly designed by technical people and doesn't have the slightest bit of usability in mind. Bash MSFT all you want, but they spend a fair amount of cash on usability, and unfortunately flattery is the best form of competition right now (think about how early versions of Word had the ability to emulate certain WordPerfect functions).
Right when I installed OO I went to open the word processor. It's actually called a Text Editor. WHAT? Notepad and nano are text editors, this is supposed to a Word Processing suite! Further, the interface looks like Office 95 - honestly, people are visual and the interface makes me feel like I should be sitting in a tiny bricked wall office with no windows and a flickering flourescent light overhead. Sure, some may like that, but it's not most people. Finally, the product seems slow on WinXP - yes, it may be my setup, and your mileage my vary, but Word is snappy on my box so it doesn't matter.
The short short is that products like Firefox and MythTV can make me a convert. They're well designed, look nice, have a lot of functionality, but also keep the end user in mind. OO.org has a long way to go thought before I'd recommend it to one single person as a Microsoft alternative.
"Personally, I object to honoring Bill Gates for anything. As far as I am concerned, he is an unethical shmuck who bears principal responsibility for the suicide of Gary Kildall. Search on "Gary Kildall" if you do not know who he is."
If you are so naive as to think that Gary Kildall is the first person to be taken advantage of in some way, then I have a bridge to sell you young man.
Your demonization of Gates is a little extreme. I can think of a lot worse people than some geek who makes geeks mad... Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein. There's many more that have done a lot worse than do things you don't like on computers.
And who truly cares if a building is named after the person who mostly paid for it? Is it not that person's right? Instead, why don't you pay for it since you feel so strongly about it? I'm much less concerned about a building's name being a person over a corporation.
And lastly, if a person commits suicide, it's their fault. Giving up only makes you the sucker - you can always take another step, pick yourself up, and win.
Technically - yes, it is and you could go to jail. But your example is a little off - really, a better example would be you built many of these devices and sat them out in front of your house with a tip jar to pay. Then it blows up if they didn't drop in the tip jar.
A slightly different take: If you "boobytrap" your house with a shotgun and a burglar enters... and gets their head blown off, it's illegal.
Building an explosive device and sending it into the public is illegal. Boobytrapping with malicious intent, even in self defense, is illegal.
If Microsoft had delievered a completely robust, all encompassing firewall product bundled in SP2, would you then gripe and bitch that was unfair and anticompetitive?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's not strong enough or you're being unfair and bundling.
Whatever, either way, saying "doesn't do shit" is pure BS - it DOES do "shit", it just doesn't do everything YOU want it to do (or what you read that others want it to do).
Most of the things you list are your opinion as you think those items are not necessary. Obviously, Microsoft disagrees.
Also, saying that it is insecure by default is an overstatement. With SP2, many of the holes that people snuck through for virii and spyware have been closed. I'd say it's secure by default within reason for a average user.
I'm not arguing that *nix is more secure by default, but I'm also not of the opinion that a desktop system for 90% of the world's population needs to be set up like that without every person being "in the know".
I still remember people saying email didn't need HTML. Time to move with the times, my friend - a desktop doesn't need to be stripped down, just more secure at externally facing points first, then you move inward.
Suggesting that we turn off DHCP with a comment like "Unnecessary on most home machines" shows that someone is not in touch with the rest of the world.
Maybe in L33Td0M you only run static IPs so you can connect by typing in l33T IP addresses instead of machine names, but the rest of the world doesn't know an IP address to save them.
Comments like that show you have no clue, because the world is not full of command prompt users.
Many Slashdotters spends a good portion bashing Microsoft for security. What does Microsoft do? Take a good period of time to try to turn things around and release a secure product (SP2).
Now a few people are saying security problems may still exist or that a few isolated people have had bad experiences with SP2 and people here bash SP2 as a failure?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What planet are you guys from? Of course it's not PERFECT you idiots - no OS and application is, no matter how secure you design from the start or whatever overused bullshit line of rhetoric you want to use. mistakes will always be there and improvements will need to be made as the product grows.
Saying slashdotters called it just shows that very few here WANT Microsoft to be secure because then it would take away your favorite hobby of nonsensically bashing an alternative to your OS of choice. You can't ignore the fact that SP2 did make MASSIVE improvements for many millions of people to make them more security aware and that is not a bad thing, even if it is a start.
Sometimes I feel when I read this crap that most people want Windows to remain insecure only for their own selfish reasons and forget there are people on the other end of those machines. Why not praise Microsoft for at least making a step in the right direction? It's this attitude that doesn't help things one bit and only comes off as childish.
And BTW, the Register article had nothing really incriminating against SP2 other than they disagreed with some of the services and firewall features. Yes the WMI hole is there but it requires more than just sitting the box on the internet. Yet many dotheads will assume this means that SP2 is just sitting open like Windows XP was straight out of the box.
Here's a fact: Put a Windows XP box on the internet and it will get infected with spyware and other crap.
Put an XPSP2 box on the internet and at least you're protected from that crap. Hell people, that's a MAJOR step!
Anyhow, the Register is hardly a worthy news source for unbiased reporting. And the ZDNet guy even said "While this is not a complete list of what makes SP2 worthwhile, SP2 is worthwhile for the majority of Windows XP users". But again, let's be honest here - he's just a guy writing an opinion column, more heart than fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny coming from the guy posting anonymously! :) Hope you turned on location services so we can find you!!
Yes, my capitalist pseudoargument is a bullshit because you disagree with it. It *IS* an argument, you just don't like it and perhaps you think everyone should do things exactly as you wish simply because you think it's important. You might also think that every product should have lots of laws governing how they are made and those companies should have legislation that manages everything they do.
Whatever - if you don't like it don't buy it.
You completely missed my point... if you don't want to have these things don't use it. Nobody is forcing people to use this phone just like nobody is forcing them to use Facebook. These companies, which are companies, sell you a service in which you pay a monthly fee to continue service. Who cares if it's retroactive? It's a service and service and privacy agreements get updated *all the time*. You pay for that service.
If AT&T tomorrow doubled its rates I would probably dump AT&T and sell my phone. Likewise, if you don't like the change, dump the phone and move on. I'm not trying to be a douche, but what promise was made to you or anybody else that these things would never change? Their previous agreement allowed them the ability to legally update it. I understand being upset but I was responding to opt-in and opt-out, and it's pretty simple - your dollars are your vote for you and how serious you are.
The last thing I want to see is a bunch of people up in arms saying we need laws to prevent this. I call BS on that. Nobody is forcing you to have a smartphone. Nobody is forcing you to use location services. And certainly, nobody is forcing you to have an iPhone. It's simple, and while that may sound brutal, that's the benefit of your ability to choose.
Also I disagree with your "rendering their devices useless" point. C'mon - not using location based services doesn't render the phone useless.
I don't believe this has anything to do with iPhone 4 - it's iOS, which you run jailbroken or not. I'm not baiting you here but why do you care about an anonymous account of your location?
Actually, there's an easy way to not agree and to opt-out and opt-in...
Don't buy the phone if this bothers you. That's the opt-out. Apple makes the phone and they have every right to do this. You, as the consumer, have every right not to buy that phone if you disagree with this. Nobody is forcing you. Could Apple make it more like Google (assuming Cory Doctorow is right)? Sure, but they chose not to. So consumers have to make an opt-in/opt-out decision: buy Apple or not.
My point is that we act like Apple is oppressing people with these policies. People either care or they don't. I don't care.
No, his point was he didn't see how Google makes money off of him. You don't have to buy things directly from Google for them to make money.
That was my point.
This is a good example of uninformed posting.
To compare Google to a dotcom seems more a misunderstanding of what is going on than anything else. While you may not like Google, the value of their stock, how they conduct their business, or whatever else... you can't say it's not worth it.
For example, in my company, we find that nearly 80% of all software purchases start with Google. Not with someone else. Google. In a multibillion dollar industry, that's a lot of searches. We have a lot of money we send Google's way as well because of that.
While Google might not make dollars off of you, you haven't hit their target yet. But that's okay, because that's the beauty of their system.
We haven't even talked about mapping, local searches, etc. You don't see how people make money off of using using Google? You must be loco.
Who cares if they're secretive? It's better than goofy proclamations that always turn out wrong by the likes of Gates, Ellison, McNealy, or RMS. And the last time I checked, I didn't have to pay a dime to get a great amount of benefit from them.
I'm guessing that you're not basing this comment on reality since they just had record sales.
"Sure.. why not? After you install Windows you get umm.. Windows. After a Windows install (even from an SP2 disk) I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them, do the Windows update, install software (Office suite, good instant messenger, graphics program, good CD burner app, etc..) and during hte process, hunt down a handful of real long alphanumeric strings that I get to enter to apparently show that I am worthy."
.. install Fedora. Generally hardware detection is much better and my hardware is detected and configured properly (granted this could be due to the fact it is newer, but alias, Microsoft doesn't offer updated ISOs of WinXP for me to download.. so I think its fair .. latest release to latest release). Oh yah, it comes with the apps I need to use ... so perhaps the quick step of updating *ALL* the software on my system to make sure its the latest versions (versus just Windows via Windows update and manually downloading for the rest..) I am pretty much done after installing Fedora."
First, your advantage is comparing apples to oranges and you also have a nonsenical arguments thrown in for good measure.
WinXP installing on a PC has 99.9% of the drivers for most people - maybe not your frankenstein setup, but most boxes are plug and play install. You want newer drivers, you have to upgrade... the last time I checked on my FC3 box, I had to do the same if newer drivers were out. Also, with regards to things like bluetooth, wireless, and legacy laptops, FC is going to be a major pain in your ass over WinXP.
As far as installing software, what about if the tools you want and need don't come with FC4? What if you want certain products that aren't there? I guess I have to "search around" for them. This is, fundamentally, also a difference between Windows XP and FC4 - one is a distro with apps, and one is an OS. For a more fair comparison, maybe you should compare it to a preloaded software suite with a new box... at least then they tend to come with recovery cds. I'll bet it's really easy then!
Also, what alphanumeric strings are you referring to? This is BS - you're obviously referring to Activation, but in an uninformed backhanded attempt. In fact, on new machines, you simply have to click activate and hit Next. If you purchase WinXP separately, yes, you must "hunt down" the string from the sleeve of your CD case. Wow, don't hurt your back in the process you lazy bastard. This same process applies to many other software packages, and it's pretty easy/fast - especially if it's a new box preloaded.
"Now Fedora lets see
Okay, so when Fedora Core 5 comes out, upgrade to it and let me know how that goes. You know, just update to the latest FC release. That should be easy since they don't test it or support it really.
Also, with regards to Microsoft not updating the ISOs. SP2 is now distributed as the base version of Windows, and updates over Windows Update is pretty easy. Couple that with Automatic Updates and it's pretty mindless for the average user. Regardless of if you like that or not, it's not "tough"
Let us all not forget that many years ago the video requirements of modern interfaces were substantially different than now. Things must progress and evolve. Interfaces will become heavier on some levels but easier on others, but you can clearly count on the advancements of technology to help OFFLOAD the strain to new devices and components. By Longhorn doing this, my guess is that my CPU will actually get less of a load on most things by making the graphics board do what it does better than a general purpose CPU.
You can't stop evolution simply because you can't keep up or you get comfortable.
I am consistently blown away by people who make comments like this:
"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"
Do you watch TV? Do you look at magazines? Style is here to stay my good friend. I don't know about you, but I DO care about what my OS looks like. If I wanted my OS to look and feel like a windowless brick room with flickering flourescent lighting, I'll skin it that way myself.
Do you even use modern software? Almost all of it is skinnable. Why do you think that's popular? Because people are bored? No, because modern software is generally an extension of your personality. My guess is yours is like vanilla ice cream.
On top of that, you are CLEARLY in the minority.
A couple scenarios:
Do you drive an old beater for a car because it "does the job"?
Do you live in a tiny room with an integrated flip down bed and sit on the floor to eat because it's a more efficient use of space?
Do you wear burlap clothes because it seems more practical?
I'm sure you talk tough on computer crap, but you probably are wasteful in other areas. People like me DO care. I care about my car having the latest features. I care about my house being more than just a few walls with a ceiling. I care about personality and enjoying what I'm working with and where I live.
"But do I really need to get new hardware... for eye candy?"
Mr. Vanilla: Do you realize that every game id and Valve release sells new hardware? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't know because you're too busy with your CGA graphics board playing pong so you're not forced to "upgrade".
Rock on - now excuse me while I go play my 8-Track.
99% of the workforce is already substantially trained on Microsoft products. You're ignoring that - many people have Microsoft Office on their resumes and training on these systems is almost *always* bypassed unless needed.
-Deployment: please make my day, tell me that it did not cost you anything to migrate from W98 to W2K or WXP. Well, that cost would be in the same ball park if you do a Linux migration (knowing what you are doing of course). The big difference would be that you may have more power in your hands to decide when to migrate once you move to Linux. If your Linux provider begins to pester you with upgrading it very well would be cheaper to move to another Linux provider (since you are keeping your data and applications properly segragated and in standard formats, which are much easier to port in Linux thatn in Windows).
Most companies skip every other microsoft release and only then do they upgrade matching versions of Office. This is well known and documented and shows the enormous cost associated with migrating. Saying it would be in the same ballpark of cost ignores the cost of resources and the availability - in some areas it's not an issue, in others it's not. Don't BS me and act like that's not a fact.
-Support: dude, it takes 2 to 3 weeks to train a competent system administrator to RHCT or even RHCE (or any other accolade you may want to obtain for your SAs). If your Windows guys can't grasp a different computer system then I would bring into question the health of your IT support anyway. A professional SA can easily and confidently translate the skills learned in one platform to another. And since your company surely is providing regular, timely training anyway, you replace the WXP update with a RHCE and you are set. If you really need to you may hire one or 2 consultants to baby sit a migration, but once people are up to speed, what would be the problem?
Again, you ignore available resources, cost of training, and already existing skillsets. Yes, people can learn, but do you not comprehend that it takes time and money to train someone for 3 weeks? You seem to have no grasp that 3 weeks on 50 resources is not a minor thing.
Licensing costs are not as important, but neither are the points you tried to drag out into the open.
You have not "blown away" anything I've said. Instead, you've continued to persist the mentality that migrating 10,000 desktops is as simple as waving your hand. That's BS and you're either working for a small to medium sized business or have yet to ever be part of a big desktop upgrade/software deployment.
All boils down to a very simple matter: do you want to leave your IT infrastructure in the hands of a single company (which is not a trustworthy busines partner)?
I'm not arguing for using Microsoft, but this doesn't make people buy Linux either (and by "buy" I mean put their money where the resources are). That's a pretty tired argument to sell to a CIO when over the past few years IT spending was substantially cut due to the economy across the board. More IT projects were put on hold or cancelled and are just now starting to kick back in. This is the real world, not "yeah but we're not evil". Whatever.
Companies do want to lower costs, but all things require some level of skilled workers. So simply eliminating licensing costs does not mean something has a lower TCO. This is a very common misconception by people here on Slashdot - thinking that no licensing costs means no cost.
That's only part of the picture and here's why. You have support costs and contracts - that's why distributions like RH have enterprise versions. These are not free, but are generally considered a requirement for any large business. Second, you have resources to support training, installtion, and management of what you deploy. Imagine simply rolling out FC3 to 10,000 people in a business without training. These are people who have, like it or not, learned the Windows way of doing things, including the OS and Office. OpenOffice is not nearly the same, and neither is KDE.
So, first we have to train 10,000 people - well that involves training instructors or paying consultants to train. That also involves the cost of taking people to training and not working on things they normally could do. It's a loss in productivity, so you stage it over a year or so to reduce the impact to the business, possibly.
Now, we haven't even deployed yet - that involves physically touching 10,000 desktops and completely migrating them over to a new environment, and ensuring you haven't lost user data. If you've ever been part of one of these, you'll know that this is also timeconsuming and costly.
Last, then we support the releases, put in infrastructure to push new patches out (yes, Linux has plenty of them), and then managing those desktops as easily or easier than Windows. This can be expensive and the easier it is to manage bulk loads of desktops remotely, the better. Yes, you have this with Windows, but now you've got to either re-tool and existing staff that was probably Windows based before in server management or hire new people - depending on your geographic area, you may have less people skilled in those areas than you would with Windows simply because Microsoft is so prevalent.
The point is nothing is free because these are not single user instances at a person's home. Thinking that licensing costs are the major portion of desktop management is a fallacy. They may be when you're a small to medium sized company, or when you're starting from scratch, but the costs of migrating can be very problematic and require a lot of time.
My 40Gig iPod has about 100 megs of space left and that's with me already pulling things out from my collection. I want the 60GB model just for music... I have over 2000 CDs that I've been converting to MP3/AAC and that's... a lot of storage.
"It isn't. OpenOffice is derived from StarOffice, made by StarDivision Inc (now acquired by Sun). In other words: OpenOffice is derived from a commercial product! *Shock*, *shrudder*, commercial products are always designed by tons of usability experts and can never, ever be unusable junk like open source software, right? Right?
If anything, your statement just proofed that commercial software can be just as bad, if not worse, at usability, which goes against common Slashdot sense that commercial software is always perfect and can never be unusable."
Okay a couple of things there. Somewhere along the line you created your own incorrect logical take on my original post.
Note that my entire post had NOTHING to do with OO.org being open source as to why it's technical, so you're barking up the wrong tree. Saying "nyah nyah, I like it and my other friend does too" is EXACTLY the kind of response that makes products sit and not be utilized. Also using this as a statement that commercial products can have usability is like saying rain is wet. Why do some products sell more than others though?
I never said OO.org was bad because it's open source or commercial. There are bad pieces of software out there on all sides and I simply said it's bad in usability compared to Office.
But one thing that won't help is to act like there's nothing wrong and be stubborn about it. Free software, REGARDLESS of origin, must be usable, appealing, and functional to have mass appeal. You can't just work on one.
"*Forget* about Desktop, its a straw man! Nobody gives a shit about desktop computing any more; the days of cubicle-bound misery-computing are numbered!"
Hrm. I think it's got a few years left in it, my friend. Giving up now to fight a future battle only puts you ahead of a curve that's not yet ready to be taken. Ask Apple - they've done a good job of this many times in the past, only to have others eat their lunch (Newton, QuickTake being a prime example).
No, I'm not a Linux geek by any means. I am certainly not a MSFT lover, but I'm a best tool for the job, and most of my job requires MSFT today. On that same thought, I've recently been getting into some open source things, and have even installed Linux pretty recently (just instaleld a MythTV box at my house!).
I've made the switch to Firefox completely - both at work and at my home. Why? It looks really nice, functions well, and was easy to get my wife switched over to as it functions pretty similar to tools she already knows. Hell, I've even switched some of my less technical friends over, and they love it. I didn't do this with Mozilla though - it just seemed "too much".
Now, on the other side, I finally broke down and installed OpenOffice to give it a shot. I thought, will this be the Office breaker I've heard about? No way. I can't stand it - it's clearly designed by technical people and doesn't have the slightest bit of usability in mind. Bash MSFT all you want, but they spend a fair amount of cash on usability, and unfortunately flattery is the best form of competition right now (think about how early versions of Word had the ability to emulate certain WordPerfect functions).
Right when I installed OO I went to open the word processor. It's actually called a Text Editor. WHAT? Notepad and nano are text editors, this is supposed to a Word Processing suite! Further, the interface looks like Office 95 - honestly, people are visual and the interface makes me feel like I should be sitting in a tiny bricked wall office with no windows and a flickering flourescent light overhead. Sure, some may like that, but it's not most people. Finally, the product seems slow on WinXP - yes, it may be my setup, and your mileage my vary, but Word is snappy on my box so it doesn't matter.
The short short is that products like Firefox and MythTV can make me a convert. They're well designed, look nice, have a lot of functionality, but also keep the end user in mind. OO.org has a long way to go thought before I'd recommend it to one single person as a Microsoft alternative.
"Personally, I object to honoring Bill Gates for anything. As far as I am concerned, he is an unethical shmuck who bears principal responsibility for the suicide of Gary Kildall. Search on "Gary Kildall" if you do not know who he is."
If you are so naive as to think that Gary Kildall is the first person to be taken advantage of in some way, then I have a bridge to sell you young man.
Your demonization of Gates is a little extreme. I can think of a lot worse people than some geek who makes geeks mad... Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein. There's many more that have done a lot worse than do things you don't like on computers.
And who truly cares if a building is named after the person who mostly paid for it? Is it not that person's right? Instead, why don't you pay for it since you feel so strongly about it? I'm much less concerned about a building's name being a person over a corporation.
And lastly, if a person commits suicide, it's their fault. Giving up only makes you the sucker - you can always take another step, pick yourself up, and win.
Technically - yes, it is and you could go to jail. But your example is a little off - really, a better example would be you built many of these devices and sat them out in front of your house with a tip jar to pay. Then it blows up if they didn't drop in the tip jar.
A slightly different take: If you "boobytrap" your house with a shotgun and a burglar enters... and gets their head blown off, it's illegal.
Building an explosive device and sending it into the public is illegal. Boobytrapping with malicious intent, even in self defense, is illegal.
"the built in firewall doesn't do shit"
If Microsoft had delievered a completely robust, all encompassing firewall product bundled in SP2, would you then gripe and bitch that was unfair and anticompetitive?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's not strong enough or you're being unfair and bundling.
Whatever, either way, saying "doesn't do shit" is pure BS - it DOES do "shit", it just doesn't do everything YOU want it to do (or what you read that others want it to do).
A few comments:
Most of the things you list are your opinion as you think those items are not necessary. Obviously, Microsoft disagrees.
Also, saying that it is insecure by default is an overstatement. With SP2, many of the holes that people snuck through for virii and spyware have been closed. I'd say it's secure by default within reason for a average user.
I'm not arguing that *nix is more secure by default, but I'm also not of the opinion that a desktop system for 90% of the world's population needs to be set up like that without every person being "in the know".
I still remember people saying email didn't need HTML. Time to move with the times, my friend - a desktop doesn't need to be stripped down, just more secure at externally facing points first, then you move inward.
"Every currently known security flaw would be a good start. Eh?"
And when you say that are you referring to your opinion on implementation of some things or something else?
"why should i trust adaware" - Anonymous Coward
Trust no one my friend. We're all out to eat you.
Agreed.
Suggesting that we turn off DHCP with a comment like "Unnecessary on most home machines" shows that someone is not in touch with the rest of the world.
Maybe in L33Td0M you only run static IPs so you can connect by typing in l33T IP addresses instead of machine names, but the rest of the world doesn't know an IP address to save them.
Comments like that show you have no clue, because the world is not full of command prompt users.
So let me get this straight.
Many Slashdotters spends a good portion bashing Microsoft for security. What does Microsoft do? Take a good period of time to try to turn things around and release a secure product (SP2).
Now a few people are saying security problems may still exist or that a few isolated people have had bad experiences with SP2 and people here bash SP2 as a failure?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What planet are you guys from? Of course it's not PERFECT you idiots - no OS and application is, no matter how secure you design from the start or whatever overused bullshit line of rhetoric you want to use. mistakes will always be there and improvements will need to be made as the product grows.
Saying slashdotters called it just shows that very few here WANT Microsoft to be secure because then it would take away your favorite hobby of nonsensically bashing an alternative to your OS of choice. You can't ignore the fact that SP2 did make MASSIVE improvements for many millions of people to make them more security aware and that is not a bad thing, even if it is a start.
Sometimes I feel when I read this crap that most people want Windows to remain insecure only for their own selfish reasons and forget there are people on the other end of those machines. Why not praise Microsoft for at least making a step in the right direction? It's this attitude that doesn't help things one bit and only comes off as childish.
And BTW, the Register article had nothing really incriminating against SP2 other than they disagreed with some of the services and firewall features. Yes the WMI hole is there but it requires more than just sitting the box on the internet. Yet many dotheads will assume this means that SP2 is just sitting open like Windows XP was straight out of the box.
Here's a fact:
Put a Windows XP box on the internet and it will get infected with spyware and other crap.
Put an XPSP2 box on the internet and at least you're protected from that crap. Hell people, that's a MAJOR step!
Anyhow, the Register is hardly a worthy news source for unbiased reporting. And the ZDNet guy even said "While this is not a complete list of what makes SP2 worthwhile, SP2 is worthwhile for the majority of Windows XP users". But again, let's be honest here - he's just a guy writing an opinion column, more heart than fact.
You completely made the point of the poster by responding with products that less than 1% of 1% of the world's population uses.
His point wasn't that those things don't exist, but hardly anyone uses them.