I mean, they couldn't possibly choose Outlook over Google Apps because they might prefer it or because Outlook may be more effective for their needs. Instead of blaming the users for your failure perhaps Google would be better off looking inwards.
And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.
The Chrome web browser has been a complete revelation in terms of security with a track record of no security problems whatsoever. Since they are building Chrome OS on top of Linux then "completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS" presumably means redesigning the security architecture of Linux. Since Linux is GPL then clearly Linus will be able to accept all of Google's changes and redesigns and then Linux will have no security flaws ever again. I'm quite sure Linus will be delighted to do so.
It would be such a joy to have an OS that never needs a security update and I'm delighted that Google will implement one.
Google really are ever so kind and generous in doing this for the world.
I've just checked out my Vista machine at work and it lists 16 updates, none of which is critical. I've got Vista SP2, IE8, Office 2007 SP2. I suspect that if you use the up-to-date versions of MS software then you will get far fewer critical updates.
I know that it's not fashionable to give MS any credit but my experience tells me that the quality and security of MS software are much improved from the bad old days. I think any reasonable scientific measure of critical vulnerabilities would regard Windows Vista desktops as being more secure than OS X and Linux desktops.
Firefox doesn't use native widgets. Goodger was formerly lead dev on Firefox. How can he complain about lack of standards on Linux when his track record is not to follow them.
And then of course there is Chrome's installer which does per user installations of program files into the user's local profile. Just what standard does that follow?
I guess you'd have to write some special processing to return a custom robots.txt to disallow all if the user agent identified the crawler as Webwise and otherwise to return the normal robots.txt.
I don't know but I imagine webservers can do this sort of thing.
MS has no plans to break compatibility. That's just a load of nonsense. If somebody would like to back that statement up with a list of APIs that have been removed from Windows then I'd be fascinated to hear about it and eat my words.
Binary compatibility is not so much of an issue, there are lots of examples of pre-compiled binary software that runs on all Linux distributions: Firefox, Flash, government tax software and quite a few games. This proves that it can be done. The trick is to include the library's with the application. The same happens with Windows applications (it often comes with a lot of DLL files).
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Perhaps you aren't all that familiar with software development on Windows. The Windows app. that my company ships links against kernel32, user32, advapi32, ole32, oleaut32, msvcrt, gdi32, comctl32, shell32, etc. I don't ship these libraries. I know that they will be present on any supported platforms (NT variants >= Win2k, as it happens).
I don't know anything about binary deployment on Linux but isn't it the case that different releases of the kernel have different binary interfaces for things the system libraries, libc for example. Surely you have to rely on the OS for something at which point you need binary compatibility. So how does Firefox, for example, manage a single pre-compiled binary download? Which version of libc does it link against?
This same logic could be used to argue that Windows is clearly better than all other operating systems since it's the most successful. Do you agree with that statement?
They will have reverted to Flash for broader plug-in install base but in terms of the tech Silverlight video is superior. If you read all the comments to this story from MLB subscribers you will see that backed up.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, 99.9% of businesses have no plans to install Linux clients.
I guess some of the half a billion people with Office installations may take more than a passing interest....
We don't use AC in the data centre for exactly those reasons!
I mean, they couldn't possibly choose Outlook over Google Apps because they might prefer it or because Outlook may be more effective for their needs. Instead of blaming the users for your failure perhaps Google would be better off looking inwards.
What really excites me about the new Google Chrome OS is the security aspect. As Google said on their official blog http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html:
The Chrome web browser has been a complete revelation in terms of security with a track record of no security problems whatsoever. Since they are building Chrome OS on top of Linux then "completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS" presumably means redesigning the security architecture of Linux. Since Linux is GPL then clearly Linus will be able to accept all of Google's changes and redesigns and then Linux will have no security flaws ever again. I'm quite sure Linus will be delighted to do so.
It would be such a joy to have an OS that never needs a security update and I'm delighted that Google will implement one.
Google really are ever so kind and generous in doing this for the world.
Well, since I can't get Norton to work on my 64-bit Vista (a platform that is three years old) I think they haven't really got a leg to stand on.
With pleasure. You are wrong.
I've just checked out my Vista machine at work and it lists 16 updates, none of which is critical. I've got Vista SP2, IE8, Office 2007 SP2. I suspect that if you use the up-to-date versions of MS software then you will get far fewer critical updates.
I know that it's not fashionable to give MS any credit but my experience tells me that the quality and security of MS software are much improved from the bad old days. I think any reasonable scientific measure of critical vulnerabilities would regard Windows Vista desktops as being more secure than OS X and Linux desktops.
Who needs people with certificates in oxymorons?
Firefox doesn't use native widgets. Goodger was formerly lead dev on Firefox. How can he complain about lack of standards on Linux when his track record is not to follow them.
And then of course there is Chrome's installer which does per user installations of program files into the user's local profile. Just what standard does that follow?
30s for a 40MB file! What a pile of crap! Or perhaps you were having a joke.....
Really? What's your evidence for that statement?
This attitude (open implies better) is what I call faith based IT.
Linux also remains pretty lame
I'm not sure it's innovation that's needed. I'd start with some decent derivative work as opposed to the low quality stuff that we have today!
Well, nobody apart from me - see my earlier post
It's my fault that you are slacking at work is it? ;-)
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Richard_Stallman
What's unique about the sandboxing in Chrome. Doesn't IE8 do the same?
I guess you'd have to write some special processing to return a custom robots.txt to disallow all if the user agent identified the crawler as Webwise and otherwise to return the normal robots.txt.
I don't know but I imagine webservers can do this sort of thing.
MS has no plans to break compatibility. That's just a load of nonsense. If somebody would like to back that statement up with a list of APIs that have been removed from Windows then I'd be fascinated to hear about it and eat my words.
Has anyone entertained the thought that people might actually choose windows because it's the best available option?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Perhaps you aren't all that familiar with software development on Windows. The Windows app. that my company ships links against kernel32, user32, advapi32, ole32, oleaut32, msvcrt, gdi32, comctl32, shell32, etc. I don't ship these libraries. I know that they will be present on any supported platforms (NT variants >= Win2k, as it happens).
I don't know anything about binary deployment on Linux but isn't it the case that different releases of the kernel have different binary interfaces for things the system libraries, libc for example. Surely you have to rely on the OS for something at which point you need binary compatibility. So how does Firefox, for example, manage a single pre-compiled binary download? Which version of libc does it link against?
Spot on! Actually I don't find it at all hard to believe - that was my British sarcastic humour escaping again!
This same logic could be used to argue that Windows is clearly better than all other operating systems since it's the most successful. Do you agree with that statement?
They will have reverted to Flash for broader plug-in install base but in terms of the tech Silverlight video is superior. If you read all the comments to this story from MLB subscribers you will see that backed up.