You saw the word "obscurity" and a red flag went off. That's good. However, you took it out of context and hurried up to post before you really thought about what they're saying.
They're not saying, "Our building doesn't have a lock on the door, but nobody knows where it is, so we're okay."
They're saying, "Not only is our site secure, but we're also very low-key, since in our business it's not good to attract attention."
Another example: Everyone knows where the NSA building is, but they still don't exactly put a big neon sign on the roof and run ads daring people to break in.
As i said in my reply to your other post, you need to read RFC 2870 ASAP.
But ask a farmer in the middle of Iowa if he could live without Windows (or even ask a parent if they're over 50 or 60) and you're likely to find out that althout society has embraced PCs and Windows... life would be just fine with an alternative, or no alternative at all.
You could have said the same thing about electricity 100 years ago, or plumbing 150 years ago.
You have no way to obtain phone, power or water without the utility (government regulations see to that). You can always obtain an OS without Microsoft.
For most businesses, "an OS" is worthless unless it's an OS that can run their stuff. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system market, they have a monopoly on the "operating systems that can run Win32 applications" market.
Your argument is like saying, "You can always power your business with steam, or hydraulics."
Also, there is no way Gateway could be competitive if they had to pay full retail price for Windows. The profit margins are razor-thin in the OEM business.
So Gateway has two choices: do whatever Microsoft demands or go out of business.
That last part is the crux of my argument; if you reply, you should explain why it's okay that Microsoft can demand whatever they want from OEMs, and the OEMs have no choice but to obey.
Other monopolies (Verizon, the local water company, etc) aren't allowed to cut off good-faith customers. Your power company can't say, "You have to buy our skateboard and milk, they're bundled with our power!" Your local telephone company can't say, "We'll double the price of your phone service unless you stop using any competitors products!"
Microsoft is a monopoly just like the others, and to most businesses, Windows is as essential as power or telephone service. Microsoft should not be allowed to withhold Windows from them or vary the price based on how much they subjugate themselves.
Blazer. I wrote a bunch of cheesy DOS loaders circa 1994 - 1995. Squidgalator 2 provided most of the graphics.
I was also one of the iCE members sucked into the whole eTantrum debacle in 2000. The company folded, owing me about $8000 in back pay. Oh well, live and learn.
The benefit is that the UI is consistent and makes sense. Currently, you always have to guess whether to single or double click, and then memorize all the special cases. It would be better if there was a set rule that applied throughout the UI.
Otherwise, why stop at two clicks? If you're going to make the user click twice to launch stuff and have single clicking be useless, why not have the user click five times, and have single- double- triple- and quadruple-clicking be useless?
I have friends who work there. There are seperate datacenters, on seperate networks. Their registrar computers have no special access to their registry computers -- they have to use the same protocols and same network links as everyone else. People who work for one division are not allowed to visit the offices of the other division. If you work for the registry, and you have problems that only the registrar can solve, you have to call their tech support and wait on hold just like everyone else. ICANN audits their systems, their accounting, everything.
No they can't. Read the ICANN agreement. There are extremely strict terms about seperation of VeriSign business units, and compliance is audited frequently.
Right now, do you single click and delete 500 files?
No.
Whichever shortcut you prefer (drawing a box, or clicking the first, holding shift, and clicking the last, or whatever), you can still do it in my model.
Consider the X in the upper-right corner of Windows windows. It closes them. I can't imagine what could be more destructive than that, yet it's just a single click.
How about the Send button in your email compose window? There's no way to undo that. Single click.
And what about the damn Quick Launch bar? Single click there to launch an application. Why is it different when the application is on the desktop?
single clicking is called selection. double clicking is called activation.
Oh really? What do you do when you want to:
Activate a hyperlink
Activate the start menu
Activate a button in MS Word
Activate a button in your task bar
You single click it.
If an icon is in your quick launch bar, you single click it to activate it, right click to do anything else. There's no need to select it. Ever. So why should things be any different for icons on the desktop?
This is off-topic, but since you asked: I actually use a really stripped down version of enlightenment. I don't have any icons. I use shift-f1 through shift-f6 to launch the applications i need. If i need to launch something that's not bound to one of those keys, i get an xterm (shift-f1) and type in the name of the command. It's a lot faster than looking through icons.
So apologies to KDE -- they made the right decision.
If you want to grab it, just click and grab. Like i said in my original post.
If you want to Get Info, you'll have to right click or command-click it anyway after you select it, so, like i said in the post you're replying to, why not just skip the select step?
I've been a PC user since 1984, when i was six years old. Since 1997, i've been dual-booting between Windows and Linux. However, i recommend Macs to all my friends who are buying their first computer. Why? And why don't i use a Mac myself?
Well, i recommend them to others because they're simply better. Prettier, easier. You can just tell that a lot more care went into designing every facet. And now that just about any major app has a Mac version or a workalike, there's no problem about software availability.
So why don't i use one myself? Legacy stuff.
I've got DOS games from ten years ago. Utilities from five years ago. Games i've already bought (even if a Mac version is available, i already own the Windows version)
If MacOS supported all the software sitting on my shelf and on my hard drive, i'd never use a PC again. (I'd still use Linux for real work like programming, but the Mac would be great for stuff like web browsing, word processing, and photo work)
If you want me as a customer, do whatever you can to promote open standards and Windows emulators.
Okay, people, you can stop replying to say that it's possible to change these settings in Windows. See this post for an explanation.
Of course, nobody reads the replies before replying. Because of the way the moderation system works here, you have to hurry up and get your post out or else nobody, not even the moderators, will ever see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, i bet all i have to do is say, "Linux and Mozilla" and people will mod this up.
You saw the word "obscurity" and a red flag went off. That's good. However, you took it out of context and hurried up to post before you really thought about what they're saying.
They're not saying, "Our building doesn't have a lock on the door, but nobody knows where it is, so we're okay."
They're saying, "Not only is our site secure, but we're also very low-key, since in our business it's not good to attract attention."
Another example: Everyone knows where the NSA building is, but they still don't exactly put a big neon sign on the roof and run ads daring people to break in.
As i said in my reply to your other post, you need to read RFC 2870 ASAP.
You need to read RFC 2870.
But ask a farmer in the middle of Iowa if he could live without Windows (or even ask a parent if they're over 50 or 60) and you're likely to find out that althout society has embraced PCs and Windows ... life would be just fine with an alternative, or no alternative at all.
You could have said the same thing about electricity 100 years ago, or plumbing 150 years ago.
You have no way to obtain phone, power or water without the utility (government regulations see to that). You can always obtain an OS without Microsoft.
For most businesses, "an OS" is worthless unless it's an OS that can run their stuff. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system market, they have a monopoly on the "operating systems that can run Win32 applications" market.
Your argument is like saying, "You can always power your business with steam, or hydraulics."
Also, there is no way Gateway could be competitive if they had to pay full retail price for Windows. The profit margins are razor-thin in the OEM business.
So Gateway has two choices: do whatever Microsoft demands or go out of business.
That last part is the crux of my argument; if you reply, you should explain why it's okay that Microsoft can demand whatever they want from OEMs, and the OEMs have no choice but to obey.
Other monopolies (Verizon, the local water company, etc) aren't allowed to cut off good-faith customers. Your power company can't say, "You have to buy our skateboard and milk, they're bundled with our power!" Your local telephone company can't say, "We'll double the price of your phone service unless you stop using any competitors products!"
Microsoft is a monopoly just like the others, and to most businesses, Windows is as essential as power or telephone service. Microsoft should not be allowed to withhold Windows from them or vary the price based on how much they subjugate themselves.
(Volume licenses are okay, though)
Blazer. I wrote a bunch of cheesy DOS loaders circa 1994 - 1995. Squidgalator 2 provided most of the graphics.
I was also one of the iCE members sucked into the whole eTantrum debacle in 2000. The company folded, owing me about $8000 in back pay. Oh well, live and learn.
The benefit is that the UI is consistent and makes sense. Currently, you always have to guess whether to single or double click, and then memorize all the special cases. It would be better if there was a set rule that applied throughout the UI.
Otherwise, why stop at two clicks? If you're going to make the user click twice to launch stuff and have single clicking be useless, why not have the user click five times, and have single- double- triple- and quadruple-clicking be useless?
I have friends who work there. There are seperate datacenters, on seperate networks. Their registrar computers have no special access to their registry computers -- they have to use the same protocols and same network links as everyone else. People who work for one division are not allowed to visit the offices of the other division. If you work for the registry, and you have problems that only the registrar can solve, you have to call their tech support and wait on hold just like everyone else. ICANN audits their systems, their accounting, everything.
No they can't. Read the ICANN agreement. There are extremely strict terms about seperation of VeriSign business units, and compliance is audited frequently.
You can still shift-select in a double-click-free world.
How about the X button in the upper right of a window? Closing the window is a pretty damn big side effect, but it's just one click.
How about icons in the quick launch bar?
Or the send button on an email window?
They all have side effects, but just need a single click.
If it is an icon you double click it
Unless it's in the Quick Launch bar.
Or in an application like MS Word.
It's inconsistent.
How do you do it now? You hold down a key and click them. Still works in my model.
Why would you launch multiple items at once? Just click each one once to launch them all one by one.
It's a lot faster when it just takes a single click to launch each one.
I meant "dumbing down" in a postive way.
OSX rocks.
BTW, i was once in iCE too.
How do you select multiple files now? You have to hold down a key.
Still works in my model.
Right now, do you single click and delete 500 files?
No.
Whichever shortcut you prefer (drawing a box, or clicking the first, holding shift, and clicking the last, or whatever), you can still do it in my model.
Okay, you tell me how to right click on five things in different parts of a list at once.
How do you do it now? You hold down control and click them. You could still do that in my model.
Consider the X in the upper-right corner of Windows windows. It closes them. I can't imagine what could be more destructive than that, yet it's just a single click.
How about the Send button in your email compose window? There's no way to undo that. Single click.
And what about the damn Quick Launch bar? Single click there to launch an application. Why is it different when the application is on the desktop?
Oh really? What do you do when you want to:
You single click it.
If an icon is in your quick launch bar, you single click it to activate it, right click to do anything else. There's no need to select it. Ever. So why should things be any different for icons on the desktop?
Excellent. A point for KDE.
This is off-topic, but since you asked: I actually use a really stripped down version of enlightenment. I don't have any icons. I use shift-f1 through shift-f6 to launch the applications i need. If i need to launch something that's not bound to one of those keys, i get an xterm (shift-f1) and type in the name of the command. It's a lot faster than looking through icons.
So apologies to KDE -- they made the right decision.
If you want to grab it, just click and grab. Like i said in my original post.
If you want to Get Info, you'll have to right click or command-click it anyway after you select it, so, like i said in the post you're replying to, why not just skip the select step?
Here's what i sent them:
I've been a PC user since 1984, when i was six years old. Since 1997, i've been dual-booting between Windows and Linux. However, i recommend Macs to all my friends who are buying their first computer. Why? And why don't i use a Mac myself?
Well, i recommend them to others because they're simply better. Prettier, easier. You can just tell that a lot more care went into designing every facet. And now that just about any major app has a Mac version or a workalike, there's no problem about software availability.
So why don't i use one myself? Legacy stuff.
I've got DOS games from ten years ago. Utilities from five years ago. Games i've already bought (even if a Mac version is available, i already own the Windows version)
If MacOS supported all the software sitting on my shelf and on my hard drive, i'd never use a PC again. (I'd still use Linux for real work like programming, but the Mac would be great for stuff like web browsing, word processing, and photo work)
If you want me as a customer, do whatever you can to promote open standards and Windows emulators.
Okay, people, you can stop replying to say that it's possible to change these settings in Windows. See this post for an explanation.
Of course, nobody reads the replies before replying. Because of the way the moderation system works here, you have to hurry up and get your post out or else nobody, not even the moderators, will ever see it.