Don't worry, Slashdot won't tell. It doesn't want any of those same friends finding out the two of you were more than friends either. Oh, and Slashdot was just faking it with you, and only got real satisfaction from your friends.:)
Ahhh, but you're forgeting that the Windows admins, who depend on MS problems for job security, were drooling at the thought of another major OS release. Now they're panicking because XP and so on are long in the tooth, and require less babysitting than they used to (comparatively, that is). To a Windows admin, having an OS that doesn't attract constant attention is the same as losing your reason to exist. After all, there are only so many openings for someone with a MS skill set, and Dell only needs so many people to oversee Windows installs on their new systems.:)
"Microsoft, the preferred platform for content-free websites"
"Microsoft, recommended by 9 out of 10 get-rich quick customers"
Seems kind of appropriate that MS is out to capture the scammer segment of the market, doesn't it? (Apologies to folks who park sites to protect themselves from scam artists.)
Quite a lot from a company that's desperate to kill off both. I think the parent was referring to the fact that notepad hasn't progressed much from the days when gui-based copy/paste was the new great idea. Other editors are nearly as small as, if not smaller than notepad, yet include editing features that make using them so much more efficient. Granted, I can't see too many MS users fondly glossing over an MS version of vi, but MS could do better, and I agree with the poster that suggested MS could probably just ask for someone to donate one, and somebody probably would happily offer it up, costing MS nothing.
The only upside for MS for not doing so might be that leaving users with a painful editor discourages them from making changes to text/config files, saving MS from potential support problems, and more importantly, keeping Windows users clueless about how computers work. You know, like other "improvements" they've made, hiding the shell, reducing shell functionality, removing command line tools, etc.
You could say MS likes to keep it's users uneducated, barefoot and pregnant. That way they won't stray.:)
You might have just answered your own question. MS wanted developers to jump to.NET, and many did, but a fair number of developers are using Mono, which is something MS probably wasn't anticipating. It's probably a little simplistic, but maybe MS no longer wants to bank it's future on.NET because of the risk that it might actually make it easier for developers to move to Linux in the future. While the.NET/C# move seemed like a good way to push developers away from common "standards" like C/C++/Java, Mono short circuited the attempt by providing developers a way to develop for.NET without being entirely locked into MS's tool set or platform.
Yep, that's annoying. I got to learn the lesson at my first "real" job, working for a small computer shop. We provided systems and support to EDS, as did one of our competitors. They were there every few days "working", while we went in once a month (as per our contract) to make sure things were kosher. At one point, our competitor was trying to cut them a "good deal" for our contract, and questions arose as to why we weren't maintaining the systems "as well as" our competitor.
I learned two important lessons from that situation. One, even if everything's running well, a box of donuts and a few minutes of chit-chat are just as important as (if not more so) than "work". Two, accountants that don't lose data are really reluctant to approve a contract that might affect that situation.:)
Well, here's two perspectives on the OT safety belt issue. First, my uncle was killed wearing a seatbelt back in the early 70's, as the belt held him tight enough to let only his head slip partway out of the rolling 1970 LTD.
Second, this past holiday season, I was running late to work in the morning, and though I had the belt on, I didn't give it a good tug before I left the house. About a 1/4 mile down the road, I hit a patch of ice, overcorrected, hit a large bump at the side of the road, and got ejected. The belt held me just enough that I landed in a crouched position, on my feet.
Then the truck slid over me, pushed me onto the ground completely, and in slow motion, continued on it's way, driving over me with the rear wheel and breaking my pelvis in several places. Two weeks in the hospital, and another month in a wheelchair (much better now, though), and I'm still not sure if the seatbelt helped or hurt me. Had it held, I would have been in the truck when it fell on it's side, and maybe been "hung" out the window like my uncle was. Had I not had it on, I might have been thrown completely free of the truck (into trees or the fence at the side of the road). Anything else, and I'd probably be typing this with a straw in my lips.
So my suggestion is to wear the seatbelt, but make sure it's not latched good!:)
You mean those "totally free" ones on that pop up on random sites you visit, and promise to do a thorough scan of your system, and all you have to do is click to accept their "license agreement"?:)
Auto updates for antivirus software, as others have said, is just asking, no begging, for trouble, because of the risk of false positives. That aside, auto update functions seem wrong on a fundamental level, for a couple reasons.
1) They encourage laziness, forgetfulness, and indifference. You install the program, and it does the rest, and when you actually need to use it manually, you have to learn (relearn) how to do so, typically at the most inconvienient time. For example, how many users/admins can use their antivirus software from the command lineon a normal day, much less when their system is working against them? Also, is testing and a staggered rollout that much freakin' effort?!!
2) Auto update, at least to me, is just another backdoor for anything, be it an attacker or virus, to use to compromise your system/network. 'Nuff said.
Fond memories? I remember testing McAfee on systems in the early 90's, and having it find all sorts of virus...at least "user created" ones. McAfee has a long reputation of being a little too vigorous in their desire to find the most viruses of any anti-virus product. If it happens to delete important stuff, hey, that's the price you pay for ensuring your computer's not infected!
Even so, from the description at least, this would appear to be one of their worst screw ups. That said, it's too bad MS has produced a culture of lazy admins. Something like this should only be an issue for home users, who might not know better. Any company that suffers from this should review their staff's qualifications and make appropriate adjustments. Unfortunately, companies are so used to software problems they've come to accept things like this and regular reboots almost as if the problem is in the hardware.
Ticks me off, because the folks that will lose their data will see the incompetent admin as a hero, because he'll make himself busy getting system backups restored. They'll lose a day (or more) of data, and be thankful the admin "was on top of things" because he made backups. Meanwhile, better admins will spend the day listening to their boss ask, "shouldn't you be doing some work or something?" Arrgh!:)
So, if you spent millions, perhaps billions, of your company's money to produce a piece of software, and your ability to recoup that money and continue the cycle depends on your customer's trust in your product (which granted, does not necessarily apply to MS), you would not spend the money to put out a press release, contact security organizations, or even drop a hint to a tech reporter that there "might" be a problem with Sony music discs?
I think that is, however, the basic problem. MS probably figured this out at some point, and then it was a matter of informing the public about the problem, or maintaining the illusion that the software is secure. While I'm all for conspiracy, I can't see MS being beholden to protecting Sony's image, so in my eyes, the only reason MS didn't say anything was because they thought Sony might actually get away with it, or perhaps MS blackmailed Sony in some way, or vice versa. It would be interesting to trace the various interactions of the two companies during this period, however, if only to find what might have been exchanged to keep things under wraps.
Well, I've noticed that using the regular up/down arrow keys only moves it one line per press, which is a pain if you're used to reading as you scroll. That said, it's possible it's some weird quirk with firefox or Linux, but either way, it's not much use to me, as I get tired of spinning a scroll mouse through dozens of pages. That, and the "floating" way it stops and starts scrolling is kind of annoying when you're eyes are used to things moving when you scroll, and stopping when your finger stops moving. Live just keeps moving when you stop scrolling, and it took me a few tries before I stopped scrolling backwards, thinking I'd skipped results. Very tough on those of us with jumpy eyeballs.
More problematic to me though, is the fact that I get, at most, half a dozen results on screen at a time. Yes, I can scroll through them, and in theory I don't have to wait for a new page, but I like being able to skim 50 results with a couple flicks of my finger, whereas looking at 50 results in Live takes much longer. And if you're a website owner, and not in the top dozen or so results, good luck getting people to your site, because I don't see any obvious way to jump past the results MS thinks are best, although that's got to be a selling point for MS to up the value of the first few spots.
From what I've seen of MS's more recent releases, MS has taken their own marketing shpeel a little too seriously. MS is fighting the battle to maintain it's marketshare from both Apple and Linux, and it's they've adopted the "easiest to use" tactic to do so. The problem is, they also have to appeal to users who aren't afraid of computers, and expect, if not demand, a certain amount of flexibility and function.
MS's answer to this is to mix the two, by tossing in as many options and gimmicks as they can, then pasting a "Fischer-Price" theme over the whole mess, and bury "complicated" options under layers of "protective" fluff. Now it's time for testers, so they call in a bunch of scared computer users, show them how easy it is to use, and how they don't have to worry about all those complicated options. Those scared users are happy, and MS feels they've done a good job. Next, MS calls in their beta testers, and shows them the pretty new interface, and reassures their more experienced users that there are plenty of "cool features" included. The beta testers are happy, especially because of the ego boost they get for helping a big company like MS.
The problem is, real-world users aren't scared of computers (or at least the handful of software they use regularly), and don't get the ego bonus of "helping MS". They simply want to get work done. To most users, pretty interfaces are meaningless after a few minutes (if not downright annoying), and when you need to use an option, having it buried under layers of protective fluff is a headache. Unfortunately for MS, their focus on scared users is blinding them to the needs of regular users, and their beta groups are so eager to be invited back that they aren't raising the kind of objections the rest of us do.
Unfortunately, it's not only MS, but a good part of the industry is doing the same thing. Look at the options page for Firefox or Gnome. There are only a handful of the options you can easily adjust, and you either have to install extra software (extensions) to adjust other options, or drop into obscure parts of the software (about:config for example) to modify things, and sometimes even deeper (user.js).
Most of us that use computers day in and day out don't expect software producers to ignore "irregular" users, but what happened to opening an options page, and the first selection of the first set of options was a drop down box that allowed you to set your "user level". If you were new to the software, you could leave it on beginner until you wanted or needed more flexibility. As you became more experienced, you could up the level (3-5 levels was normal), sometimes reaching the point where you were essentially running the software in a weird kind of debug/testing mode. These days almost no software has this handy adjustment, and it's a shame.
Unfortunately for MS, it's current culture is formed around the idea that users are either too stupid to notice or will learn to accept MS's bad decisions, and as long as their key test groups are inexperienced users and cheerleaders, and the money is still coming in, there's no reason for them to ask themselves, "Are we sure this is a good idea?" More disturbingly, MS's financial status also harms them, because they can afford to screw things up pretty badly. If most companies put something like live.com out, they would be forced to check and double check to see if this was what users really wanted or needed, and adjust accordingly, because the money they invested required them to do so. MS can push out live.com in it's current state, and not even blink if it fails and costs them millions.
The real pain won't show up for MS till much later, someday when they notice that sales aren't where they need to be, and they're not getting the attention they used to. (I think we're seeing some of it already.) Unfortunately for MS, by then it will be much harder to regain traction, simply because while MS isn't bothered too much by losing a few million on each failed project, people have
Well, all I can say is that if the average guy (and a few of the gals) can't find titties on Ms's search engine, it's never going to beat Google for marketshare.:)
--Hmm, mistyped the MS's part, but considering my first impressions of live.com, I think it might be more appropriate, because it looks like live.com is going to end up being Google's bitc...:)
Regarding the $6 coin-only fee, I was at a traveling carnival last year, and they were trialing swipe cards for replacing the old tickets system for riding rides. Great idea, but there was only one place to get the cards and refill them from a cashier, which had a line a mile long. They had thought ahead, and there were a number of vending machines that would sell/refill them, but as in your case, they only accepted quarters, and the cards only worked in denominations of $10. I was real tempted to take a hammer and see if I could knock a whole roll of quarters through that slot. . I don't know who the genius accountant was that decided on the cheapy vending machines, but even the carnies were ticked at them, because most people just got tired of the hassle and skipped the rides that weekend (we have one every couple weeks, so it's not a can't miss event), though from what I saw, the contest folks (toss the loop, darts, etc.) were doing great business, probably because most people don't like to go through the hassle of going someplace, then walk out without doing anything. . From what I saw of the card idea, it worked great, you walk up, slide your card, the gate/operator lets you through, and you're golden. The card had a rope for putting them around your neck, so you didn't have to worry about losing tickets along the way. One problem I did see was some people thought they had more money on their card than they did (or were trying to get a free ride), and that meant the operator had to deal with them a little, which slowed things. . Still, I can't help but think of how much money they lost, simply because somebody in management decided to save a few bucks and get coin-only machines. I figure that after a few towns, the carnies probably just tossed the card system in the bin and went back to ticket stubs, because it was a real headache not only to us, but to them as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but they're lined up backwards, bent over, with their pants around their ankles...
Don't worry, Slashdot won't tell. It doesn't want any of those same friends finding out the two of you were more than friends either. Oh, and Slashdot was just faking it with you, and only got real satisfaction from your friends. :)
Ahhh, but you're forgeting that the Windows admins, who depend on MS problems for job security, were drooling at the thought of another major OS release. Now they're panicking because XP and so on are long in the tooth, and require less babysitting than they used to (comparatively, that is). To a Windows admin, having an OS that doesn't attract constant attention is the same as losing your reason to exist. After all, there are only so many openings for someone with a MS skill set, and Dell only needs so many people to oversee Windows installs on their new systems. :)
No more then what many people already know as "replicators" from Star Trek
Never been much of a trekkie, but aren't replicators from Stargate-SG1?
Well, Michael Dell said he needed a good reason to start moving Linux machines. Maybe MS is inadvertantly providing one. :)
Which instantly crashes due to the sudden surge in load... :)
"Microsoft, the preferred platform for content-free websites"
"Microsoft, recommended by 9 out of 10 get-rich quick customers"
Seems kind of appropriate that MS is out to capture the scammer segment of the market, doesn't it? (Apologies to folks who park sites to protect themselves from scam artists.)
Excellent, just as MS intends the message to be received. Those brain implants must be working. :)
Quite a lot from a company that's desperate to kill off both. I think the parent was referring to the fact that notepad hasn't progressed much from the days when gui-based copy/paste was the new great idea. Other editors are nearly as small as, if not smaller than notepad, yet include editing features that make using them so much more efficient. Granted, I can't see too many MS users fondly glossing over an MS version of vi, but MS could do better, and I agree with the poster that suggested MS could probably just ask for someone to donate one, and somebody probably would happily offer it up, costing MS nothing.
:)
The only upside for MS for not doing so might be that leaving users with a painful editor discourages them from making changes to text/config files, saving MS from potential support problems, and more importantly, keeping Windows users clueless about how computers work. You know, like other "improvements" they've made, hiding the shell, reducing shell functionality, removing command line tools, etc.
You could say MS likes to keep it's users uneducated, barefoot and pregnant. That way they won't stray.
You might have just answered your own question. MS wanted developers to jump to .NET, and many did, but a fair number of developers are using Mono, which is something MS probably wasn't anticipating. It's probably a little simplistic, but maybe MS no longer wants to bank it's future on .NET because of the risk that it might actually make it easier for developers to move to Linux in the future. While the .NET/C# move seemed like a good way to push developers away from common "standards" like C/C++/Java, Mono short circuited the attempt by providing developers a way to develop for .NET without being entirely locked into MS's tool set or platform.
I take it you've never seen Bill Gates give a presentation of "the new big thing" MS has to offer. :)
Yep, that's annoying. I got to learn the lesson at my first "real" job, working for a small computer shop. We provided systems and support to EDS, as did one of our competitors. They were there every few days "working", while we went in once a month (as per our contract) to make sure things were kosher. At one point, our competitor was trying to cut them a "good deal" for our contract, and questions arose as to why we weren't maintaining the systems "as well as" our competitor.
:)
I learned two important lessons from that situation. One, even if everything's running well, a box of donuts and a few minutes of chit-chat are just as important as (if not more so) than "work". Two, accountants that don't lose data are really reluctant to approve a contract that might affect that situation.
Well, here's two perspectives on the OT safety belt issue. First, my uncle was killed wearing a seatbelt back in the early 70's, as the belt held him tight enough to let only his head slip partway out of the rolling 1970 LTD.
:)
Second, this past holiday season, I was running late to work in the morning, and though I had the belt on, I didn't give it a good tug before I left the house. About a 1/4 mile down the road, I hit a patch of ice, overcorrected, hit a large bump at the side of the road, and got ejected. The belt held me just enough that I landed in a crouched position, on my feet.
Then the truck slid over me, pushed me onto the ground completely, and in slow motion, continued on it's way, driving over me with the rear wheel and breaking my pelvis in several places. Two weeks in the hospital, and another month in a wheelchair (much better now, though), and I'm still not sure if the seatbelt helped or hurt me. Had it held, I would have been in the truck when it fell on it's side, and maybe been "hung" out the window like my uncle was. Had I not had it on, I might have been thrown completely free of the truck (into trees or the fence at the side of the road). Anything else, and I'd probably be typing this with a straw in my lips.
So my suggestion is to wear the seatbelt, but make sure it's not latched good!
What, were you out of batteries for your cattle prod? :)
You mean those "totally free" ones on that pop up on random sites you visit, and promise to do a thorough scan of your system, and all you have to do is click to accept their "license agreement"? :)
Auto updates for antivirus software, as others have said, is just asking, no begging, for trouble, because of the risk of false positives. That aside, auto update functions seem wrong on a fundamental level, for a couple reasons.
1) They encourage laziness, forgetfulness, and indifference. You install the program, and it does the rest, and when you actually need to use it manually, you have to learn (relearn) how to do so, typically at the most inconvienient time. For example, how many users/admins can use their antivirus software from the command lineon a normal day, much less when their system is working against them? Also, is testing and a staggered rollout that much freakin' effort?!!
2) Auto update, at least to me, is just another backdoor for anything, be it an attacker or virus, to use to compromise your system/network. 'Nuff said.
Fond memories? I remember testing McAfee on systems in the early 90's, and having it find all sorts of virus...at least "user created" ones. McAfee has a long reputation of being a little too vigorous in their desire to find the most viruses of any anti-virus product. If it happens to delete important stuff, hey, that's the price you pay for ensuring your computer's not infected!
:)
Even so, from the description at least, this would appear to be one of their worst screw ups. That said, it's too bad MS has produced a culture of lazy admins. Something like this should only be an issue for home users, who might not know better. Any company that suffers from this should review their staff's qualifications and make appropriate adjustments. Unfortunately, companies are so used to software problems they've come to accept things like this and regular reboots almost as if the problem is in the hardware.
Ticks me off, because the folks that will lose their data will see the incompetent admin as a hero, because he'll make himself busy getting system backups restored. They'll lose a day (or more) of data, and be thankful the admin "was on top of things" because he made backups. Meanwhile, better admins will spend the day listening to their boss ask, "shouldn't you be doing some work or something?" Arrgh!
So, if you spent millions, perhaps billions, of your company's money to produce a piece of software, and your ability to recoup that money and continue the cycle depends on your customer's trust in your product (which granted, does not necessarily apply to MS), you would not spend the money to put out a press release, contact security organizations, or even drop a hint to a tech reporter that there "might" be a problem with Sony music discs?
I think that is, however, the basic problem. MS probably figured this out at some point, and then it was a matter of informing the public about the problem, or maintaining the illusion that the software is secure. While I'm all for conspiracy, I can't see MS being beholden to protecting Sony's image, so in my eyes, the only reason MS didn't say anything was because they thought Sony might actually get away with it, or perhaps MS blackmailed Sony in some way, or vice versa. It would be interesting to trace the various interactions of the two companies during this period, however, if only to find what might have been exchanged to keep things under wraps.
Well, I've noticed that using the regular up/down arrow keys only moves it one line per press, which is a pain if you're used to reading as you scroll. That said, it's possible it's some weird quirk with firefox or Linux, but either way, it's not much use to me, as I get tired of spinning a scroll mouse through dozens of pages. That, and the "floating" way it stops and starts scrolling is kind of annoying when you're eyes are used to things moving when you scroll, and stopping when your finger stops moving. Live just keeps moving when you stop scrolling, and it took me a few tries before I stopped scrolling backwards, thinking I'd skipped results. Very tough on those of us with jumpy eyeballs.
More problematic to me though, is the fact that I get, at most, half a dozen results on screen at a time. Yes, I can scroll through them, and in theory I don't have to wait for a new page, but I like being able to skim 50 results with a couple flicks of my finger, whereas looking at 50 results in Live takes much longer. And if you're a website owner, and not in the top dozen or so results, good luck getting people to your site, because I don't see any obvious way to jump past the results MS thinks are best, although that's got to be a selling point for MS to up the value of the first few spots.
Well, my guess is somebody's already working on a firefox extension to deal with this, but my fear is MS has loaded a patent with the idea, too.
Nah, simply call it:
From what I've seen of MS's more recent releases, MS has taken their own marketing shpeel a little too seriously. MS is fighting the battle to maintain it's marketshare from both Apple and Linux, and it's they've adopted the "easiest to use" tactic to do so. The problem is, they also have to appeal to users who aren't afraid of computers, and expect, if not demand, a certain amount of flexibility and function.
MS's answer to this is to mix the two, by tossing in as many options and gimmicks as they can, then pasting a "Fischer-Price" theme over the whole mess, and bury "complicated" options under layers of "protective" fluff. Now it's time for testers, so they call in a bunch of scared computer users, show them how easy it is to use, and how they don't have to worry about all those complicated options. Those scared users are happy, and MS feels they've done a good job. Next, MS calls in their beta testers, and shows them the pretty new interface, and reassures their more experienced users that there are plenty of "cool features" included. The beta testers are happy, especially because of the ego boost they get for helping a big company like MS.
The problem is, real-world users aren't scared of computers (or at least the handful of software they use regularly), and don't get the ego bonus of "helping MS". They simply want to get work done. To most users, pretty interfaces are meaningless after a few minutes (if not downright annoying), and when you need to use an option, having it buried under layers of protective fluff is a headache. Unfortunately for MS, their focus on scared users is blinding them to the needs of regular users, and their beta groups are so eager to be invited back that they aren't raising the kind of objections the rest of us do.
Unfortunately, it's not only MS, but a good part of the industry is doing the same thing. Look at the options page for Firefox or Gnome. There are only a handful of the options you can easily adjust, and you either have to install extra software (extensions) to adjust other options, or drop into obscure parts of the software (about:config for example) to modify things, and sometimes even deeper (user.js).
Most of us that use computers day in and day out don't expect software producers to ignore "irregular" users, but what happened to opening an options page, and the first selection of the first set of options was a drop down box that allowed you to set your "user level". If you were new to the software, you could leave it on beginner until you wanted or needed more flexibility. As you became more experienced, you could up the level (3-5 levels was normal), sometimes reaching the point where you were essentially running the software in a weird kind of debug/testing mode. These days almost no software has this handy adjustment, and it's a shame.
Unfortunately for MS, it's current culture is formed around the idea that users are either too stupid to notice or will learn to accept MS's bad decisions, and as long as their key test groups are inexperienced users and cheerleaders, and the money is still coming in, there's no reason for them to ask themselves, "Are we sure this is a good idea?" More disturbingly, MS's financial status also harms them, because they can afford to screw things up pretty badly. If most companies put something like live.com out, they would be forced to check and double check to see if this was what users really wanted or needed, and adjust accordingly, because the money they invested required them to do so. MS can push out live.com in it's current state, and not even blink if it fails and costs them millions.
The real pain won't show up for MS till much later, someday when they notice that sales aren't where they need to be, and they're not getting the attention they used to. (I think we're seeing some of it already.) Unfortunately for MS, by then it will be much harder to regain traction, simply because while MS isn't bothered too much by losing a few million on each failed project, people have
Well, all I can say is that if the average guy (and a few of the gals) can't find titties on Ms's search engine, it's never going to beat Google for marketshare. :)
:)
--Hmm, mistyped the MS's part, but considering my first impressions of live.com, I think it might be more appropriate, because it looks like live.com is going to end up being Google's bitc...
This is wierd, IE doesn't seem to work on Linux. How do they expect to compete with Firefox, Opera, and others? :)
Regarding the $6 coin-only fee, I was at a traveling carnival last year, and they were trialing swipe cards for replacing the old tickets system for riding rides. Great idea, but there was only one place to get the cards and refill them from a cashier, which had a line a mile long. They had thought ahead, and there were a number of vending machines that would sell/refill them, but as in your case, they only accepted quarters, and the cards only worked in denominations of $10. I was real tempted to take a hammer and see if I could knock a whole roll of quarters through that slot.
.
I don't know who the genius accountant was that decided on the cheapy vending machines, but even the carnies were ticked at them, because most people just got tired of the hassle and skipped the rides that weekend (we have one every couple weeks, so it's not a can't miss event), though from what I saw, the contest folks (toss the loop, darts, etc.) were doing great business, probably because most people don't like to go through the hassle of going someplace, then walk out without doing anything.
.
From what I saw of the card idea, it worked great, you walk up, slide your card, the gate/operator lets you through, and you're golden. The card had a rope for putting them around your neck, so you didn't have to worry about losing tickets along the way. One problem I did see was some people thought they had more money on their card than they did (or were trying to get a free ride), and that meant the operator had to deal with them a little, which slowed things.
.
Still, I can't help but think of how much money they lost, simply because somebody in management decided to save a few bucks and get coin-only machines. I figure that after a few towns, the carnies probably just tossed the card system in the bin and went back to ticket stubs, because it was a real headache not only to us, but to them as well.