The "PTC" is simply trying to get publicity for their beliefs. If the OP thinks their point is ridiculous (as do I), then sadly he just gave them exactly what they wanted. Better to just ignore them and move on, otherwise they're just going to feel empowered and possibly start getting the attention of people who think this is worth-while.
Sadly, while isn't a fart in the wind like it was 17 years ago, Linux most definitely is not a major force in the desktop computing world. MOST of what people use Wine for is just that: desktop computing. Market share is a teensy blip for that type of Linux computing... and the places where it IS much bigger tend to spend virtually nothing on commercial software.
All that forcing people to write natively to Linux instead of using Wine will do is starve those people of apps and slowly push them to Windows.
I'm in that boat. I spent nearly a decade doing technical marketing and sales engineer work for Linux products including desktop environments. Nowadays? I do that work for networking gadgets instead and have zero Linux systems active. I may have another one soon, but it will be in the form of a phone.
I'd LOVE it if Linux had made inroads, and I did my share on helping with that, but it didn't. And at some point you -do- need to find a system that will work in your corporate and social environments.
Which is exactly why I spent the 15 minutes necessary to:
1) delete all my old blog posts (moving them to another blog service)
2) message all of my remaining MySpace friends I was leaving and unfriended them
3) delete all my contact info, replacing mandatory fields with "PRIVATE", and changing my location and birth date to something random
4) change my contact address (used as your login) to my spam trap address
5) confirmed all the above
6) deleted the account
They may still have rights to the data after the deletion, but I doubt they have things in place to keep multiple deltas of your profile and sell those.
I've seen this policy applied before by Continental. A kid of about 17 years old was forced to buy a 2nd ticket. Or rather was forced to call the mother of his friend who had purchased his tickets for him to make her buy another ticket. He told me this as the 2 of us were sitting in the 3-seat row of the plane as his way of letting me know I wouldn't have to worry about someone taking the middle seat because he paid for it. He was quite embarrassed.
I personally am a bigger dude, but not that big, so I was relieved we were going to have some extra space.
Then Continental seated a deadheading pilot from another airline in that empty seat. For free. And the kid next to him was able, barely, to lower the arm rest.
The kid was too embarrassed to speak up for himself. So I mentioned it to both the pilot as well as the Continental flight attendant for our section. The pilot's reaction? "I dunno, not my call". The stewardess? Pretty much no response at all.
I've seen a similar case as well where the person bought 2 seats and someone on standby was given their seat. In that case the airline refunded their money and let the person on standby take the seat. Which means the airline wasn't caring at all about the safety of anyone, they just wanted their cash.
The airline policies are invoked willy-nilly at THEIR convenience without a care for the injury caused. The policies would be understandable if they were enforced justly and equally, but they do not. If you buy 2 seats then the flight attendants should not be able to reassign you. I could name plenty of other policies that get applied unfairly too, like luggage sizes, after 13 years of business travel... but they would get so mind-numbing that it's just not worth it.
I'm not even sure why people think that the University NEEDS to host students' email accounts any longer. Seriously, it made sense in the 1990s when not everyone even knew what email was. But today? There are better things that schools can do with their resources. Running a multi-tens-of-thousands of accounts email server is NOT trivial, especially if the users are expecting backups and redundancy.
Setting up a vanity forwarding service for students is nice, a good way to allow them to create a filterable identity and give the faculty a known way for communicating with the students. And yes, having a faculty mail service makes a ton of sense for business-critical email as well as protected private communications. But students don't need the mail to actually be hosted locally any more and most probably prefer it not be.
There most certainly isn't a -right- to such services.
I don't mean as in jailbreaking, I mean as in unlocking my SIM card when the contract is fulfilled like every other phone (ever) allows. I could handle the lack of jailbreaking (since I'm switching to a different phone, the Nokia N900, specifically to have a better hack environment). I just want to be able to give my iPhone to a friend on a different network. Once the contract is fulfilled I've paid AT&T back for their investment in the phone. Not unlocking the SIM at this point is just greed.
I already left AT&T due to the jailbreaking issue. This is different. And snide reply is snide.
Pfft. Self-documenting code is fine if you know for certain everyone who is going to work with the code has at least as much experience in everything that you use to code. Otherwise if you refuse to comment you're just causing a barrier to entry for someone who may be able to get up to speed very quickly and help you out. The type of project it is should dictate your commenting as much as anything. Especially if it is a project others use and that you may abandon in the future.
If you don't -want- to share the code and/or have less experienced help start in working on it that's a valid decision. But not putting comments in to prove to everyone that you know your stuff (which I've seen happen plenty of times) is not. It typically takes a very little amount of time to create a decent comment. And if you're good enough to re-read your own code at any time you can go put them in after you are done.
That said, I tend to just mod stuff as I need and/or script for myself. That means I don't know any one language masterfully and so yes, not only do I rely on comments on code that isn't painfully obvious but I also document my own code in the extreme (including citing sources if I borrowed from other code) so that I can go back and pick it up quickly if I need to edit it years in the future. For instance I usually write my comment -before- the code and use it as a guide so I can remember my place while I'm figuring out how to do something (and then update the comment as I change what the code ends up doing) and yep, I put in apologetic or excusatory comments mostly to remind myself to go find a better way to do it. So I agree with the basic premise of the article that comments can indicate a lack of knowledge on the commenter. But I also feel that purposefully not commenting is a bad call as well. There is a good middle ground.
What tools exist to diagnose this nowadays? I would think that sticking a proxy between your modem and router (assuming you're not using a built-in) would let you do some pretty quick and dirty traffic analysis. I would also think that open source router firmwares could do the same.
Heck, I would like to know for my own purposes at my home office to occasionally verify my PCs and friends laptops aren't acting like botnet zombies.
And you could probably turn it into a fairly interesting consulting gig.
"I'd consider the disability to annoy your seat neighbours with music a good design choice."
Then you would be someone who prefers to remove choice and capability from all for the punishment of a few. Many of us use cellphones in environments that need hands free -and- clear sound at higher volumes. Perhaps next time instead of sitting there gritting your teeth you could politely ask the person to turn it down.
Agreed. My PS3, HR20 (DirecTV DVR) and Xbox360 are the same age (approaching 1 year) and the PS3 is quieter than either of the other 2. I use the Xbox to play games on but I won't watch programming on it (I use UPnP streaming on all 3 devices). The PS3 runs louder than the HR20 if the PS3 is loading from a game disc but when playing BluRay they are about equal (and no, I'm not saying the HR20 has a disc, just that it is comparable in sound) and when viewing from the HDs or streaming the PS3 is the quietest of the bunch.
It actually wasn't the exact same procedures, at least not in Denver. It was about twice the amount of time to "clear" the Clear line because of extra measures. Clear users in Denver were put through the "you look suspicious, let's sniff you" line. Yeah, they got to cut to the head of that line (which made it REAL fun to go through as a normal Joe) but it still slowed them down significantly.
I am so glad I decided not to enroll. I am a very regular traveler through the Denver airport and Clear had a very visible presence at the security gates. I was tempted at first but decided against it for 2 reasons:
1) Privacy: When I emailed Clear they stated that they did not share data with the government but they couldn't guarantee they -wouldn't- share data in the future. Clear takes -both- fingerprints and retinal prints. I asked if I could just give the retinal and they said no. While I haven't done anything that would have gotten me in hot water if the government got my finger prints... well... I reserve the right to keep them to myself, thank you very much.
2) Speed: Clear was supposed to be a "breeze through security" service. And yet all the stuff they do in the line (scan you for identity, put you through a "puff & sniff" detector) seemed to make people go through Clear -slower- than the normal lines over half of the time. The only time Clear was faster when I watched was during very high holiday traffic times... and then only when there weren't many people in the Clear line.
Thanks but no thanks. Instead of getting us to pay to make a few people go through faster why not improve the TSA processes in the "real" security lines so that we don't have to suffer through things like:
* Idiots who STILL don't know how to remove their jewelry/shoes/laptops (easily accomplished by a -free- registration card that you can apply for after having passed through security at least once and using that completely wasted "1st class" security line for us business travelers)
* TSA jerks who literally go on break while being the baggage scanner. 25% of the time or -more- I am in a line where the scanner just stops. NO they aren't being diligent by double-checking a bag they are just sitting there. The last time a supervisor came over and started chatting up the bag scanner... positioning themself between the growing line of travelers and the scanner so they couldn't see us... even looking back, seeing the line growing, and continuing to chat the with the bag scanner attendant. Based on the amount of laughter and hand motions it was all just fun... for them. Meanwhile there were other people standing nearby who could have helped.
And Clear wouldn't have helped in that situation. Why? Because it was late in the evening on a Sunday and Clear had closed up.
Clear was an attempt to make money off the fact that the TSA has no damned concept of speed nor efficiency. That's the wrong way to do it.
"no true libertarian thinks that the government should purchase ads for McAfee and Symantec"
And no true computer professional thinks that educating people on why viruses/trojans/spyware/botnets are a danger to them is purchasing an ad for McAfee and Symantec.
There are plenty of ways that education could be spread that would be completely product agnostic while reminding people that that Vista machine they just picked up is a gaping sack of attackable holes.
As a lib I say it is far better that the govt do something like this than to either create software that they mandate computers be sold with or even to mandate any software or standards on the OSes in general. Which is the -other- direction this thought could be taken to. Far better to push revenue to existing private businesses than to control the products of other businesses.
As long as the software was created by non-government controlled businesses (ie the companies that do AV now would be just fine), the government didn't have a say in the actual code, and the products aren't subsidized... I don't see most libertarians having a problem with it in general.
The place "we" (as a left lib) would have problems would be:
1) if the software gave the govt a spy into our PCs, which if the govt was to author their own software would be pretty much impossible to disprove (open source AV would be interesting)
2) if the govt was trying to give our money (directly via taxes) to the companies that build the software, propping some up over others
If the govt were to start preaching the values of safe computing and explaining why AV/etc software is important? Go for it. Government providing unbiased education (and I don't anyone from any political party who says unprotected PCs getting viruses are a =good= thing) is an accepted function of the government, yes, even by us Libs.
PS. In case it isn't obvious, I found the way the quote mentioned Libs to be stereotypeful and poor.
Part of the problem IS Apple though. They take a TON of time releasing fixes and updates for some apps. I've got an app, which was one of the reasons that convinced me to buy an iPhone, that took 3 months for Apple to release the update. But it had been in queue after being submitted by the developer for over 3 -months-.
Sorry but no, Apple has a cash cow with the store... and many other companies are releasing competing stores... Apple should refund the cost to the customer, too. Or have a "restocking fee" that they won't refund and pocket that. Especially since the entity that determines whether the refund will happen is Apple. The entity that determines the validity of a refund needs to have some skin in the decision.
It won't happen today or even next year... but Apple is shooting the iPhone in the proverbial foot. Android is continually improving their dev environment and has much better store policies. Blackberry is releasing their store soon and while I doubt their policies are better on the store, their messaging capability still can't be beat. Apple needs to find ways to -strengthen- their position with developers, not piss them off.
Time for me to pull out the stodgy old man attitude:
1) I don't want MMORPGs on Facebook.
2) I don't want your "lil green patch" or "monty python widget" or whatever else on Facebook.
3) I don't want random people joining Facebook who only join to waste time on the little applets.
I can't be the only person who feels that Facebook went from a "much better than MySpace" place to a "omg what a freaking timesink" place in barely a year.
If Facebook not giving ad revenue or lots of real estate to developers helps keep the developers in a sandbox and helps prevent Facebook from hemoraging into the AOL of 2010 then I'm all for it.
Sun's "Java Desktop" system (yeah, I know, I know) which was based on SuSE.
I also did embedded Linux at MontaVista... where we helped invent much of the instant-on on Arm technology that is starting to hit laptops.
Prior to that I was part of the Linux appliance world at Cobalt Networks.
(I no longer work professionally on Linux products, I moved to a networking software gig)
I've used laptops on the go for longer than you've probably been in the work force:) I use them today. Right now I run on everything from a Lenovo Thinkpad T61p (huge) to a HP 2133 mini netbook (small) to an iPhone and a Blackberry.
I'm quite familiar with the Linux on Laptop world, the embedded Linux world, and with the corporate types that make up most of the market of these devices who are still thinking Linux is something that won't do what they need every day.
You don't understand the point of my post. I'm not saying that the features offered are bad. I'm saying that people will equate the usage of Linux with "tasks that don't require horsepower" and with a system that is not geared to run anything but a few specific applications. You're correct that the features are nice. My point is that they won't in any way enhance the perception of Linux in the market place nor convince corporate folk to switch to Linux. Which is something the author of the original article mentioned he thought -would- happen.
YOU see nothing but positives... but you are NOT the typical business user. And you probably aren't paid to understand how they look at things in relation to the product. I see cool features... but ones that accidentally give the wrong impression about Linux to people who don't have savvy about the nuances here and who will not continue to invest their time into seeing if things change. First impressions last for years and years when it comes to things like this.
I don't feel that Dell is creating this impression on purpose... I doubt they care much one way or the other. Doesn't change things. I know corp folks who saw Linux once 5 years ago and still assume that it is exactly the same today. That makes some sense since they are usually still using the same OS (XP) that they installed in 2001.
The author seems to think that exposure to Linux here might convince people to leave Windows. I strongly disagree.
I used to be in technical marketing for a desktop Linux distro. People listen to the marketing message especially when it is negative. What does that mean? Well lets look at the implied marketing message that is given by this system:
"Linux is good enough for your quick tasks like firing off an email but you need Windows to do your heavy hitting."
ANY corporate non-techie is going to see that if they have to boot Windows to get their big tasks done they obviously don't want Linux on their main system.
Now let us think about the actual environment you get with each:
Linux - Arm processor... limited applications. The non-techie won't know that they've been artificially limited by the laptop manufacturer. They're just going to know that "Linux is slow" and "I can't download new apps in Linux".
Windows - Intel processor... full applications and no limit on downloading new software.
Seriously... things like this are the WORST thing possible for getting the idea of Linux as a desktop replacement out to the mass market. They not only have to fight the current battles regarding custom apps not being written for them but they add artificial misperceptions about the limitations of Linux.
Sometimes no exposure -is- better than bad exposure. If you look only at the bullet points it is cool that a laptop is shipping Linux. And if you can keep your bosses from ever reading the parts about using Linux in a limited way (and NEVER let them touch one of these) then it would be good. But you can't. And you can't control the perception that Linux is limited once they start using it in a stunted environment like this.
When video cameras came out people cried that film making was dying. People left the industry. Films are still going strong.
16mm cameras Disposable cameras Photoshop VCRs Word Processors Cell phones
They all caused similar hair pulling by the "professionals" that these disruptive devices allowed to be in some form competed with by people who otherwise never would have had access. In the end each of these technologies democratized their industries and yet they all survived with talented people who continue to work professionally in them.
1/2 of the people in journalism seriously today would have been muffles as hacks by the people in the business 20 years ago.
Is all of the content out there up to par with the professional journalism standards? HELL NO. But I never said it was. However there -is- work out there that has rivalled and surpassed what was available from the traditional channels.
The great amateur work has finally found a way to reach the masses. Good journalists continue to find outlets to reach the masses as well. Its a win-win from my perspective. The only downside is the white noise out there that sucks. But if we can adapt to spam in all of its other forms we can adapt to this noise, too.
IT and developers create that web and hence its doodads.
Journalists (and other creators) then populate that web and doodad with content....
The point being: No, java / flash / doodads won't save journalism. And journalism isn't dying. It still exists but has a WEALTH of new contributors, which leaves demand for the few highly trained contributors low enough that many are leaving the field. Yet we still get our news.
I don't like doodads. When I want news I want content. Not buttons. Not animations (unless they are truly pertinent).
Journalists that create doodads are trying to salvage their career by doing something that is not PART of their career. Just like Developers who try to create content.
So... long answer given the short answer is: No, doodads won't save journalism. But journalism is evolving, not dying.
Slashdot Mirror
The "PTC" is simply trying to get publicity for their beliefs. If the OP thinks their point is ridiculous (as do I), then sadly he just gave them exactly what they wanted. Better to just ignore them and move on, otherwise they're just going to feel empowered and possibly start getting the attention of people who think this is worth-while.
Sadly, while isn't a fart in the wind like it was 17 years ago, Linux most definitely is not a major force in the desktop computing world. MOST of what people use Wine for is just that: desktop computing. Market share is a teensy blip for that type of Linux computing ... and the places where it IS much bigger tend to spend virtually nothing on commercial software.
All that forcing people to write natively to Linux instead of using Wine will do is starve those people of apps and slowly push them to Windows.
I'm in that boat. I spent nearly a decade doing technical marketing and sales engineer work for Linux products including desktop environments. Nowadays? I do that work for networking gadgets instead and have zero Linux systems active. I may have another one soon, but it will be in the form of a phone.
I'd LOVE it if Linux had made inroads, and I did my share on helping with that, but it didn't. And at some point you -do- need to find a system that will work in your corporate and social environments.
Sure, but they aren't going to stop selling it. No reason not to remove relevant data from new databases.
Which is exactly why I spent the 15 minutes necessary to:
1) delete all my old blog posts (moving them to another blog service)
2) message all of my remaining MySpace friends I was leaving and unfriended them
3) delete all my contact info, replacing mandatory fields with "PRIVATE", and changing my location and birth date to something random
4) change my contact address (used as your login) to my spam trap address
5) confirmed all the above
6) deleted the account
They may still have rights to the data after the deletion, but I doubt they have things in place to keep multiple deltas of your profile and sell those.
Pollute your data BEFORE you cancel your account.
You are definitely not the only one. Says something about the state of Sun's visibility these days, eh? Youngsters.
I've seen this policy applied before by Continental. A kid of about 17 years old was forced to buy a 2nd ticket. Or rather was forced to call the mother of his friend who had purchased his tickets for him to make her buy another ticket. He told me this as the 2 of us were sitting in the 3-seat row of the plane as his way of letting me know I wouldn't have to worry about someone taking the middle seat because he paid for it. He was quite embarrassed.
I personally am a bigger dude, but not that big, so I was relieved we were going to have some extra space.
Then Continental seated a deadheading pilot from another airline in that empty seat. For free. And the kid next to him was able, barely, to lower the arm rest.
The kid was too embarrassed to speak up for himself. So I mentioned it to both the pilot as well as the Continental flight attendant for our section. The pilot's reaction? "I dunno, not my call". The stewardess? Pretty much no response at all.
I've seen a similar case as well where the person bought 2 seats and someone on standby was given their seat. In that case the airline refunded their money and let the person on standby take the seat. Which means the airline wasn't caring at all about the safety of anyone, they just wanted their cash.
The airline policies are invoked willy-nilly at THEIR convenience without a care for the injury caused. The policies would be understandable if they were enforced justly and equally, but they do not. If you buy 2 seats then the flight attendants should not be able to reassign you. I could name plenty of other policies that get applied unfairly too, like luggage sizes, after 13 years of business travel ... but they would get so mind-numbing that it's just not worth it.
I'm not even sure why people think that the University NEEDS to host students' email accounts any longer. Seriously, it made sense in the 1990s when not everyone even knew what email was. But today? There are better things that schools can do with their resources. Running a multi-tens-of-thousands of accounts email server is NOT trivial, especially if the users are expecting backups and redundancy.
Setting up a vanity forwarding service for students is nice, a good way to allow them to create a filterable identity and give the faculty a known way for communicating with the students. And yes, having a faculty mail service makes a ton of sense for business-critical email as well as protected private communications. But students don't need the mail to actually be hosted locally any more and most probably prefer it not be.
There most certainly isn't a -right- to such services.
I don't mean as in jailbreaking, I mean as in unlocking my SIM card when the contract is fulfilled like every other phone (ever) allows. I could handle the lack of jailbreaking (since I'm switching to a different phone, the Nokia N900, specifically to have a better hack environment). I just want to be able to give my iPhone to a friend on a different network. Once the contract is fulfilled I've paid AT&T back for their investment in the phone. Not unlocking the SIM at this point is just greed.
I already left AT&T due to the jailbreaking issue. This is different. And snide reply is snide.
I just want them to be forced to unlock the phone after we've paid our contractual obligations. Sigh.
Pfft. Self-documenting code is fine if you know for certain everyone who is going to work with the code has at least as much experience in everything that you use to code. Otherwise if you refuse to comment you're just causing a barrier to entry for someone who may be able to get up to speed very quickly and help you out. The type of project it is should dictate your commenting as much as anything. Especially if it is a project others use and that you may abandon in the future.
If you don't -want- to share the code and/or have less experienced help start in working on it that's a valid decision. But not putting comments in to prove to everyone that you know your stuff (which I've seen happen plenty of times) is not. It typically takes a very little amount of time to create a decent comment. And if you're good enough to re-read your own code at any time you can go put them in after you are done.
That said, I tend to just mod stuff as I need and/or script for myself. That means I don't know any one language masterfully and so yes, not only do I rely on comments on code that isn't painfully obvious but I also document my own code in the extreme (including citing sources if I borrowed from other code) so that I can go back and pick it up quickly if I need to edit it years in the future. For instance I usually write my comment -before- the code and use it as a guide so I can remember my place while I'm figuring out how to do something (and then update the comment as I change what the code ends up doing) and yep, I put in apologetic or excusatory comments mostly to remind myself to go find a better way to do it. So I agree with the basic premise of the article that comments can indicate a lack of knowledge on the commenter. But I also feel that purposefully not commenting is a bad call as well. There is a good middle ground.
What tools exist to diagnose this nowadays? I would think that sticking a proxy between your modem and router (assuming you're not using a built-in) would let you do some pretty quick and dirty traffic analysis. I would also think that open source router firmwares could do the same.
Heck, I would like to know for my own purposes at my home office to occasionally verify my PCs and friends laptops aren't acting like botnet zombies.
And you could probably turn it into a fairly interesting consulting gig.
"I'd consider the disability to annoy your seat neighbours with music a good design choice."
Then you would be someone who prefers to remove choice and capability from all for the punishment of a few. Many of us use cellphones in environments that need hands free -and- clear sound at higher volumes. Perhaps next time instead of sitting there gritting your teeth you could politely ask the person to turn it down.
Agreed. My PS3, HR20 (DirecTV DVR) and Xbox360 are the same age (approaching 1 year) and the PS3 is quieter than either of the other 2. I use the Xbox to play games on but I won't watch programming on it (I use UPnP streaming on all 3 devices). The PS3 runs louder than the HR20 if the PS3 is loading from a game disc but when playing BluRay they are about equal (and no, I'm not saying the HR20 has a disc, just that it is comparable in sound) and when viewing from the HDs or streaming the PS3 is the quietest of the bunch.
It actually wasn't the exact same procedures, at least not in Denver. It was about twice the amount of time to "clear" the Clear line because of extra measures. Clear users in Denver were put through the "you look suspicious, let's sniff you" line. Yeah, they got to cut to the head of that line (which made it REAL fun to go through as a normal Joe) but it still slowed them down significantly.
I am so glad I decided not to enroll. I am a very regular traveler through the Denver airport and Clear had a very visible presence at the security gates. I was tempted at first but decided against it for 2 reasons:
1) Privacy: When I emailed Clear they stated that they did not share data with the government but they couldn't guarantee they -wouldn't- share data in the future. Clear takes -both- fingerprints and retinal prints. I asked if I could just give the retinal and they said no. While I haven't done anything that would have gotten me in hot water if the government got my finger prints ... well ... I reserve the right to keep them to myself, thank you very much.
2) Speed: Clear was supposed to be a "breeze through security" service. And yet all the stuff they do in the line (scan you for identity, put you through a "puff & sniff" detector) seemed to make people go through Clear -slower- than the normal lines over half of the time. The only time Clear was faster when I watched was during very high holiday traffic times ... and then only when there weren't many people in the Clear line.
Thanks but no thanks. Instead of getting us to pay to make a few people go through faster why not improve the TSA processes in the "real" security lines so that we don't have to suffer through things like:
* Idiots who STILL don't know how to remove their jewelry/shoes/laptops (easily accomplished by a -free- registration card that you can apply for after having passed through security at least once and using that completely wasted "1st class" security line for us business travelers)
* TSA jerks who literally go on break while being the baggage scanner. 25% of the time or -more- I am in a line where the scanner just stops. NO they aren't being diligent by double-checking a bag they are just sitting there. The last time a supervisor came over and started chatting up the bag scanner ... positioning themself between the growing line of travelers and the scanner so they couldn't see us ... even looking back, seeing the line growing, and continuing to chat the with the bag scanner attendant. Based on the amount of laughter and hand motions it was all just fun ... for them. Meanwhile there were other people standing nearby who could have helped.
And Clear wouldn't have helped in that situation. Why? Because it was late in the evening on a Sunday and Clear had closed up.
Clear was an attempt to make money off the fact that the TSA has no damned concept of speed nor efficiency. That's the wrong way to do it.
Good riddance!
"no true libertarian thinks that the government should purchase ads for McAfee and Symantec"
And no true computer professional thinks that educating people on why viruses/trojans/spyware/botnets are a danger to them is purchasing an ad for McAfee and Symantec.
There are plenty of ways that education could be spread that would be completely product agnostic while reminding people that that Vista machine they just picked up is a gaping sack of attackable holes.
As a lib I say it is far better that the govt do something like this than to either create software that they mandate computers be sold with or even to mandate any software or standards on the OSes in general. Which is the -other- direction this thought could be taken to. Far better to push revenue to existing private businesses than to control the products of other businesses.
Any -good- lib recognizes the need to compromise.
As long as the software was created by non-government controlled businesses (ie the companies that do AV now would be just fine), the government didn't have a say in the actual code, and the products aren't subsidized ... I don't see most libertarians having a problem with it in general.
The place "we" (as a left lib) would have problems would be:
1) if the software gave the govt a spy into our PCs, which if the govt was to author their own software would be pretty much impossible to disprove (open source AV would be interesting)
2) if the govt was trying to give our money (directly via taxes) to the companies that build the software, propping some up over others
If the govt were to start preaching the values of safe computing and explaining why AV/etc software is important? Go for it. Government providing unbiased education (and I don't anyone from any political party who says unprotected PCs getting viruses are a =good= thing) is an accepted function of the government, yes, even by us Libs.
PS. In case it isn't obvious, I found the way the quote mentioned Libs to be stereotypeful and poor.
Nice :)
Maybe a joke at first, but I think you should keep them :)
Part of the problem IS Apple though. They take a TON of time releasing fixes and updates for some apps. I've got an app, which was one of the reasons that convinced me to buy an iPhone, that took 3 months for Apple to release the update. But it had been in queue after being submitted by the developer for over 3 -months-.
Sorry but no, Apple has a cash cow with the store ... and many other companies are releasing competing stores ... Apple should refund the cost to the customer, too. Or have a "restocking fee" that they won't refund and pocket that. Especially since the entity that determines whether the refund will happen is Apple. The entity that determines the validity of a refund needs to have some skin in the decision.
It won't happen today or even next year ... but Apple is shooting the iPhone in the proverbial foot. Android is continually improving their dev environment and has much better store policies. Blackberry is releasing their store soon and while I doubt their policies are better on the store, their messaging capability still can't be beat. Apple needs to find ways to -strengthen- their position with developers, not piss them off.
Time for me to pull out the stodgy old man attitude:
1) I don't want MMORPGs on Facebook.
2) I don't want your "lil green patch" or "monty python widget" or whatever else on Facebook.
3) I don't want random people joining Facebook who only join to waste time on the little applets.
I can't be the only person who feels that Facebook went from a "much better than MySpace" place to a "omg what a freaking timesink" place in barely a year.
If Facebook not giving ad revenue or lots of real estate to developers helps keep the developers in a sandbox and helps prevent Facebook from hemoraging into the AOL of 2010 then I'm all for it.
"What distro was that for?"
Sun's "Java Desktop" system (yeah, I know, I know) which was based on SuSE.
I also did embedded Linux at MontaVista ... where we helped invent much of the instant-on on Arm technology that is starting to hit laptops.
Prior to that I was part of the Linux appliance world at Cobalt Networks.
(I no longer work professionally on Linux products, I moved to a networking software gig)
I've used laptops on the go for longer than you've probably been in the work force :) I use them today. Right now I run on everything from a Lenovo Thinkpad T61p (huge) to a HP 2133 mini netbook (small) to an iPhone and a Blackberry.
I'm quite familiar with the Linux on Laptop world, the embedded Linux world, and with the corporate types that make up most of the market of these devices who are still thinking Linux is something that won't do what they need every day.
You don't understand the point of my post. I'm not saying that the features offered are bad. I'm saying that people will equate the usage of Linux with "tasks that don't require horsepower" and with a system that is not geared to run anything but a few specific applications. You're correct that the features are nice. My point is that they won't in any way enhance the perception of Linux in the market place nor convince corporate folk to switch to Linux. Which is something the author of the original article mentioned he thought -would- happen.
YOU see nothing but positives ... but you are NOT the typical business user. And you probably aren't paid to understand how they look at things in relation to the product. I see cool features ... but ones that accidentally give the wrong impression about Linux to people who don't have savvy about the nuances here and who will not continue to invest their time into seeing if things change. First impressions last for years and years when it comes to things like this.
I don't feel that Dell is creating this impression on purpose ... I doubt they care much one way or the other. Doesn't change things. I know corp folks who saw Linux once 5 years ago and still assume that it is exactly the same today. That makes some sense since they are usually still using the same OS (XP) that they installed in 2001.
I used to be in technical marketing for a desktop Linux distro. People listen to the marketing message especially when it is negative. What does that mean? Well lets look at the implied marketing message that is given by this system:
ANY corporate non-techie is going to see that if they have to boot Windows to get their big tasks done they obviously don't want Linux on their main system.
Now let us think about the actual environment you get with each:
Seriously ... things like this are the WORST thing possible for getting the idea of Linux as a desktop replacement out to the mass market. They not only have to fight the current battles regarding custom apps not being written for them but they add artificial misperceptions about the limitations of Linux.
Sometimes no exposure -is- better than bad exposure. If you look only at the bullet points it is cool that a laptop is shipping Linux. And if you can keep your bosses from ever reading the parts about using Linux in a limited way (and NEVER let them touch one of these) then it would be good. But you can't. And you can't control the perception that Linux is limited once they start using it in a stunted environment like this.
Pretty much same here, though it gets more than 2 messages. I also use my Yahoo for "junk" email requirements.
Whatever Google does for spam, they do it right.
When video cameras came out people cried that film making was dying. People left the industry. Films are still going strong.
16mm cameras
Disposable cameras
Photoshop
VCRs
Word Processors
Cell phones
They all caused similar hair pulling by the "professionals" that these disruptive devices allowed to be in some form competed with by people who otherwise never would have had access. In the end each of these technologies democratized their industries and yet they all survived with talented people who continue to work professionally in them.
1/2 of the people in journalism seriously today would have been muffles as hacks by the people in the business 20 years ago.
Is all of the content out there up to par with the professional journalism standards? HELL NO. But I never said it was. However there -is- work out there that has rivalled and surpassed what was available from the traditional channels.
The great amateur work has finally found a way to reach the masses. Good journalists continue to find outlets to reach the masses as well. Its a win-win from my perspective. The only downside is the white noise out there that sucks. But if we can adapt to spam in all of its other forms we can adapt to this noise, too.
Display Applications are for web sites.
Research applications are for research.
Content is for journalism.
Journalism receives data from research.
Journalism provides raw materials to the web.
The web presents them to us.
IT and developers create that web and hence its doodads.
Journalists (and other creators) then populate that web and doodad with content. ...
The point being: No, java / flash / doodads won't save journalism. And journalism isn't dying. It still exists but has a WEALTH of new contributors, which leaves demand for the few highly trained contributors low enough that many are leaving the field. Yet we still get our news.
I don't like doodads. When I want news I want content. Not buttons. Not animations (unless they are truly pertinent).
Journalists that create doodads are trying to salvage their career by doing something that is not PART of their career. Just like Developers who try to create content.
So ... long answer given the short answer is: No, doodads won't save journalism. But journalism is evolving, not dying.