Who's talking about heavy administration tasks? I used the IIS example because it was fresh in my mind.
Even so, it's extremely easy to copy configurations. You just export the config, copy it to another server, and import it. You can programmatically change servers using shell scripting objects, and it's certainly easier to find an obscure setting in IIS Manager than it is to dig through reams of documentation for apache.
The point of the article was for average users, not expert administrators.
Oh, don't even get me started on that steaming pile of crap known as webmin. It typically requires a million clicks and typing of paths to get everything working. There are no "browse" boxes to browse to the folder (making it far easier to make typing errors). Setting up SSL means dropping to your server's command prompt to generate certificates, etc..
And, from a GUI usabilty standpoint, it violates almost every rule of good GUI design. Webmin bites. Hard. And that really just illustrates my point. The people that maintain these tools like complexity. End users don't.
All OS's have little backwards bits here and there. Gnome has gconf, for instance. MacOS X has some hidden config files you have to get to for (rare) things.
Compare, say, setting up apache on a typical Linux distribution with configuring IIS on Windows. The difference is night and day. Sure, sometimes you have to dig into the Machine.conf or use a command line tool like httpcfg, but these are rarities, rather than the common case. Also, while there are some GUI configuration tools for apache from various sources, all of them suck rocks through a straw to the point that it's EASIER to look up arcane flags and configuration settings and type them into a text editor than it is to click a button. Typically, it's just a graphical representation of the config file.
OSX and Windows do a damn good job of making the common stuff easy to configure and use with a nice GUI. On Linux, what config applet you use may depend on which environment you're using. KDE and Gnome both have different stuff, as does SUSE, Red Hat, etc.. consistency may be better (not great, but better) within one particular distro, but not across even two similar ones.
This is a hot button, though. Lots of people will disagree, because whatever they're doing works for them. it's that kind of myopic outlook ("it works for me, you must be too stupid") that makes it so difficult for Linux to gain acceptance. It doesn't have to "work for you", it has to "work for THEM", and if it works for you too, then that's even better.
This "out of the box" argument has always confused me. Especially in light of the fact that the original poster was talking about absolute availability of drivers, not just whether it ships in the box.
There are a lot of devices out there without ANY Linux drivers, such as recent ATI video cards, various wireless chipsets (and NDISWrappers is only a partial solution to some of them, especially if you need to do more advanced things like netstumbler), etc.. that's not even counting the stuff like the USB video encoders and the like.
This whole "out of the box" argument seems to be a smokescreen put up by people that don't want to argue about absolute driver availability.
What you're talking about is not better acting, but more familiarity with the characters as the series progressed.
Your first exposure was to a well oiled movie in which the actors had had several years to become familiar with the subject matter and characters. They where comfortable, as was Joss. Then, you go back and look at the first episodes... it wasn't better acting per se, but more character to draw from.
Consider devices like the TiVo. This uses encryption and DRM to keep the entertainment industry off it's back and allow users the ability to do what the TiVo does. You most certainly would NOT have TiVo2Go and Home Media Option (the ability to share programs between TiVo's) without DRM. They'd be sued to death.
If the Linux kernel prevented DRM by its license, then TiVo or similar device manufacturers would have to look elsewhere.
Sorry, both Outlook 2000 and 2003 work fine as a normal user. I'm using Outlook 2003 right now without any enhanced privileges. I did so with 2000 before it.
As you say, most of them can be fixed with a permissions change. I don't really call that 'requiring' admin. Also, the "load device driver" permission can be given to specific users or groups without granting admin permissions as well.
You're somewhat right about XP Home, but you can always use cacls or just set folders as "local shared". Not ideal, of course, but you don't have to grant full rights.
The real kicker is games, some of which have semi-valid reasons (anti-cheating methods, for example), and programs that think they know better than you, and deliberately die if you aren't an admin (even if you have addressed all the issues they think they're solving).
Uhh.. no, sorry. You don't need to make them admin to access those files. Just give them rights to the folder (usually c:\quickenw). Yes, a lot of programs might not run out of the box as a normal user, but the vast majority can be tweaked with a few settings.
Ahh but these problems are easily solved by giving the user permission on the specific resources, such as the registry keys needed. You don't need to make them an admin.
Because too many apps have problems when run by a non-admin.
Can you name any? Besides games, that is. I hear this all the time, but almost nobody can actually come up with any kind of list. If there are so many of them, why is it so hard to list them?
Typing in the root password to install software isn't something I'd call a nuisance or even mildly irritating.
But it IS insecure. When a user logs in, they're in an environment that cannot typically be spoofed. However, training user to type in their administrative password routinely, in an environment where user programs can easily pretend to be administrative ones is a recipe for password sniffing.
I have never come across a Flash site that wouldn't had made me wish that the whole thing hadn't just been done with HTML.
Maybe not, but you clearly aren't speaking for everyone. I deal with end users. They *LIKE* flash. Site developers wouldn't design using it if users hated it, they'd get no traffic. Just because YOU dislike flash doesn't mean you should impose your belief on the web.
Having said that, I largely agree with you;) But I don't thrust my beliefs on my users. And, i find certain kinds of flash to be VERY useful (flash video, for instance, is far more compatible than Real or WMP for streaming). I also find flash for online games to be of better quality than most Java games.
If you were the only provider of whatever it is you provide, your argument might hold some weight. However, if two sites with identical content, structured in different ways (but appear to be identical to the ned user), can achieve very different page ranks, something is wrong.
The fact is, a site that uses semantic design will get a higher rank than a site with nested tables, though the sites may look identical to the end user. This isn't "ranking as humans would view it", but rather "ranking as google want to".
Then throw in things like SVG, Canvas, Java, ActiveX, Flash, DHTML, Ajax, etc... and google forces you to severely limit your designs in order to keep a high page rank, especially if you have competitors making simpler sites.
Yes, just like it's easy to switch to a different browser, right? You can't control what end users do, and if they continue to use google, that means you have to continue to appease google.
Other forms of advertising generally don't wield the same kind of power as google does. If one tv station doesn't like your content, maybe another will, or perhaps radio or billboards. There's lots of viable competition. Google owns web searching. It's THE verb for searching, for crying out loud. Other search engines
Of course there are FCC or FTC consideration, but google is not a regulatory body. It doesn't control content (overlooking the recent China issues) but it does "play favorites".
I'm not missing the point at all. I'm fully aware of the limitations of search engine technology. The "point" is that by virtue of the power that google wields, the act of "punishing" sites for attempting to compensate for google's limitations is unfair. If your site doesn't appear at a good RELEVENT link for it's content, it's simply not going to get much traffic. Alternate search engines are becoming graveyards that users simply don't use.
Basically, that means comply with googles rules, or die, and if you try to compensate for their problems, you die.
It's a red herring to concentrate on the technological limitations. Yes, there are currently technological limitaions, and to googles credit they appear to be spending money to solve some of those issues (though I don't think they're very high priority).
The problem is the limited technology coupled with the punishment for trying to "fix" googles weaknesses. If the problem were MERELY a case of spamming, fine. But the limitations of google technology create a situation where site designers either have to follow googles rules, or "cheat" if they want the exact same ranking they'd have if they'd designed the site in a way that was friendly to google.
I used flash as an example, but it's by far not the only issue. Suppose I create a site using nested tables, but a competitor creates one with a more semantic structure, but they contain virtually identical content? The competitor will get a better ranking.
I simply don't think that google should be "punishing" anyone for simply trying to address googles weaknesses. You can argue all day about semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that users with a browser can get a flash or nested table site to view just as easily as one google likes.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's talking about heavy administration tasks? I used the IIS example because it was fresh in my mind.
Even so, it's extremely easy to copy configurations. You just export the config, copy it to another server, and import it. You can programmatically change servers using shell scripting objects, and it's certainly easier to find an obscure setting in IIS Manager than it is to dig through reams of documentation for apache.
The point of the article was for average users, not expert administrators.
Oh, don't even get me started on that steaming pile of crap known as webmin. It typically requires a million clicks and typing of paths to get everything working. There are no "browse" boxes to browse to the folder (making it far easier to make typing errors). Setting up SSL means dropping to your server's command prompt to generate certificates, etc..
And, from a GUI usabilty standpoint, it violates almost every rule of good GUI design. Webmin bites. Hard. And that really just illustrates my point. The people that maintain these tools like complexity. End users don't.
All OS's have little backwards bits here and there. Gnome has gconf, for instance. MacOS X has some hidden config files you have to get to for (rare) things.
Compare, say, setting up apache on a typical Linux distribution with configuring IIS on Windows. The difference is night and day. Sure, sometimes you have to dig into the Machine.conf or use a command line tool like httpcfg, but these are rarities, rather than the common case. Also, while there are some GUI configuration tools for apache from various sources, all of them suck rocks through a straw to the point that it's EASIER to look up arcane flags and configuration settings and type them into a text editor than it is to click a button. Typically, it's just a graphical representation of the config file.
OSX and Windows do a damn good job of making the common stuff easy to configure and use with a nice GUI. On Linux, what config applet you use may depend on which environment you're using. KDE and Gnome both have different stuff, as does SUSE, Red Hat, etc.. consistency may be better (not great, but better) within one particular distro, but not across even two similar ones.
This is a hot button, though. Lots of people will disagree, because whatever they're doing works for them. it's that kind of myopic outlook ("it works for me, you must be too stupid") that makes it so difficult for Linux to gain acceptance. It doesn't have to "work for you", it has to "work for THEM", and if it works for you too, then that's even better.
I'd rather have to go out and find a driver than not have the option of finding a driver at all.
Hmmm.. sounds a lot like Office 12.
This "out of the box" argument has always confused me. Especially in light of the fact that the original poster was talking about absolute availability of drivers, not just whether it ships in the box.
There are a lot of devices out there without ANY Linux drivers, such as recent ATI video cards, various wireless chipsets (and NDISWrappers is only a partial solution to some of them, especially if you need to do more advanced things like netstumbler), etc.. that's not even counting the stuff like the USB video encoders and the like.
This whole "out of the box" argument seems to be a smokescreen put up by people that don't want to argue about absolute driver availability.
What you're talking about is not better acting, but more familiarity with the characters as the series progressed.
Your first exposure was to a well oiled movie in which the actors had had several years to become familiar with the subject matter and characters. They where comfortable, as was Joss. Then, you go back and look at the first episodes... it wasn't better acting per se, but more character to draw from.
What a great idea, that guy must be a real genius to have the name "Brilliant"
Consider devices like the TiVo. This uses encryption and DRM to keep the entertainment industry off it's back and allow users the ability to do what the TiVo does. You most certainly would NOT have TiVo2Go and Home Media Option (the ability to share programs between TiVo's) without DRM. They'd be sued to death.
If the Linux kernel prevented DRM by its license, then TiVo or similar device manufacturers would have to look elsewhere.
Ok, I guess three weeks can be counted in hours, but that's a LOT of hours.
Sure beats the insides of a tauntaun any day....
Sorry, both Outlook 2000 and 2003 work fine as a normal user. I'm using Outlook 2003 right now without any enhanced privileges. I did so with 2000 before it.
As you say, most of them can be fixed with a permissions change. I don't really call that 'requiring' admin. Also, the "load device driver" permission can be given to specific users or groups without granting admin permissions as well.
You're somewhat right about XP Home, but you can always use cacls or just set folders as "local shared". Not ideal, of course, but you don't have to grant full rights.
The real kicker is games, some of which have semi-valid reasons (anti-cheating methods, for example), and programs that think they know better than you, and deliberately die if you aren't an admin (even if you have addressed all the issues they think they're solving).
That may be what YOU do, but that's certainly not what everyone does, and we are talking about Windows here.
Interesting, but as I suspected, the vast majority are either games or require simple permission changes. A few seem to require admin, but not many.
Uhh.. no, sorry. You don't need to make them admin to access those files. Just give them rights to the folder (usually c:\quickenw). Yes, a lot of programs might not run out of the box as a normal user, but the vast majority can be tweaked with a few settings.
Ahh but these problems are easily solved by giving the user permission on the specific resources, such as the registry keys needed. You don't need to make them an admin.
Because too many apps have problems when run by a non-admin.
Can you name any? Besides games, that is. I hear this all the time, but almost nobody can actually come up with any kind of list. If there are so many of them, why is it so hard to list them?
Typing in the root password to install software isn't something I'd call a nuisance or even mildly irritating.
But it IS insecure. When a user logs in, they're in an environment that cannot typically be spoofed. However, training user to type in their administrative password routinely, in an environment where user programs can easily pretend to be administrative ones is a recipe for password sniffing.
I have never come across a Flash site that wouldn't had made me wish that the whole thing hadn't just been done with HTML.
;) But I don't thrust my beliefs on my users. And, i find certain kinds of flash to be VERY useful (flash video, for instance, is far more compatible than Real or WMP for streaming). I also find flash for online games to be of better quality than most Java games.
Maybe not, but you clearly aren't speaking for everyone. I deal with end users. They *LIKE* flash. Site developers wouldn't design using it if users hated it, they'd get no traffic. Just because YOU dislike flash doesn't mean you should impose your belief on the web.
Having said that, I largely agree with you
If you were the only provider of whatever it is you provide, your argument might hold some weight. However, if two sites with identical content, structured in different ways (but appear to be identical to the ned user), can achieve very different page ranks, something is wrong.
The fact is, a site that uses semantic design will get a higher rank than a site with nested tables, though the sites may look identical to the end user. This isn't "ranking as humans would view it", but rather "ranking as google want to".
Then throw in things like SVG, Canvas, Java, ActiveX, Flash, DHTML, Ajax, etc... and google forces you to severely limit your designs in order to keep a high page rank, especially if you have competitors making simpler sites.
Yes, just like it's easy to switch to a different browser, right? You can't control what end users do, and if they continue to use google, that means you have to continue to appease google.
Other forms of advertising generally don't wield the same kind of power as google does. If one tv station doesn't like your content, maybe another will, or perhaps radio or billboards. There's lots of viable competition. Google owns web searching. It's THE verb for searching, for crying out loud. Other search engines
Of course there are FCC or FTC consideration, but google is not a regulatory body. It doesn't control content (overlooking the recent China issues) but it does "play favorites".
I'm not missing the point at all. I'm fully aware of the limitations of search engine technology. The "point" is that by virtue of the power that google wields, the act of "punishing" sites for attempting to compensate for google's limitations is unfair. If your site doesn't appear at a good RELEVENT link for it's content, it's simply not going to get much traffic. Alternate search engines are becoming graveyards that users simply don't use.
Basically, that means comply with googles rules, or die, and if you try to compensate for their problems, you die.
It's a red herring to concentrate on the technological limitations. Yes, there are currently technological limitaions, and to googles credit they appear to be spending money to solve some of those issues (though I don't think they're very high priority).
The problem is the limited technology coupled with the punishment for trying to "fix" googles weaknesses. If the problem were MERELY a case of spamming, fine. But the limitations of google technology create a situation where site designers either have to follow googles rules, or "cheat" if they want the exact same ranking they'd have if they'd designed the site in a way that was friendly to google.
I used flash as an example, but it's by far not the only issue. Suppose I create a site using nested tables, but a competitor creates one with a more semantic structure, but they contain virtually identical content? The competitor will get a better ranking.
I simply don't think that google should be "punishing" anyone for simply trying to address googles weaknesses. You can argue all day about semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that users with a browser can get a flash or nested table site to view just as easily as one google likes.