Why does Evolution's GUI stand out as much? It doesn't look like a Windows application - the colours are wrong, for one, the toolbar delimiters are non-standard, the up-down widget as well, the checkbox is non-checkboxey, the icons are bland, and there are lots of buttons around.
Is it a GUI toolkit limitation, or...? I mean, no offense, I hear only good things about Evolution from my Linux-using friends, but this wouldn't even blend in Windows 95. I honestly can't see people using it, despite all the bells and whistles it may have.
Erm, mods? AC asks a valid question. UI is a major component in an application that you would use your whole work day long. Ergonomics are not just an add on, and a standardized UI is key to user acceptance!
Microsoft's new Vista is surprisingly entertaining. The new look of the operating system is good, and lets it outshine its Linux and Mac OS competitors. One notices repeatedly while working with this software that Microsoft scoped out its competition very carefully.
Penny Arcade is using it since a few weeks. I don't know if the glitches with the site lately have anything to do with that, but Tycho sometimes mentioned them himself. So, a new release should be welcome to them.
Which, while fine in itself, is hardly a groundbreaking achievment for an OS, or is it? At least Windows has done that for years, and I believe Linux does as well (at least we have a working "sensor" implementation on a few RedHat / HP servers).
10$ per hour for the humans, tens of thousands for the scanners. Damn you machine-overlords!
On the other hand, the whole project is funded by Microsoft and Yahoo, which creates the usual good (open content!) / evil (paid for with the devil's money!) dilemma....
Well, actually I didn't mean to imply that new technology can't beat old technology.
I was just saying that the things that have lately been called "Killers" of whatever have not done so well, especially not killed their subject. As an example I provided the iPod, which has more Killers than anything, but is far from dead.
While there might be good reasons for not installing here and there, I suspect most of the so called "admins" are just to lazy or simply clueless when it comes to large scale software distribution.
Installing SP2 in a large corporate environment is nothing to sneeze at, I agree, but that's no excuse for not patching.
The product is scheduled for release in the second quarter of 2005
Companies with large numbers of clients already have that funtionality. From Microsoft's own SMS in combination with Vintela's fantastic extensions for Linux / Unix / Mac management.
The catch is, most companies are MS centric, so they use SMS to manage their clients. With Linux replacing the Unix (if any) machines in those companies it makes sense to extend the existing management product, to use ONE solution to manage ALL clients.
Check out Vintela if you haven't. They offer client management, authentication and single sign on for integration of non-MS clients into MS-centric networks.
Yes, out of date. The bottom of the page says "Copyright 2003 Michael Rolig", and the TC1000 isn't bleeding edge either.
And I don't know if Windows users should be lured into Linux on the TabletPC. Unless you want to scare the off, that is. ATM you'd just lose what's making the Tablet special (handwritting, OneNote, and so on), and if that was your first meeting with Linux, you'd never come back.
Windows XP SP1 with the for-free ZoneAlarm firewall, however, as well as Windows XP SP2, fared much better. Although both configurations were probed by attackers, neither was compromised during the two weeks.
Also:
The Macintosh machine, on the other hand, was assaulted as often as the Windows XP SP1 box, but never was grabbed by a hacker, thanks to the tunnel vision that attackers have for Windows. "The automated bot/worm attackers were exclusively using Windows-based attacks," said Colombano, so Mac and Linux machines are safe. For now. "[But] it would have been very vulnerable had code been written to compromise its system," he added
And finally and most importantly:
"No machine is immune," he counseled. "No human is safe from every virus, and it's the same for machines. That's why people have to have some personal responsibility about security. You have to be a good citizen on the network, so you're not only protecting yourself, but others who might be attacked from exploits originating on your machine."
Oh come on, that's an argument you would expect from a 3 year old ("but he hit me, too, mommy, I swear"), even if there were proof (is there?) that Microsoft software contained backdoors, that _can not_ be the constant to measure Open Source.
Stop letting Microsoft dictate what's ok and what's not!
And cut that "M$" crap, I'm sure someone can point you to the corresponding PA-strip.
It's an obvious business tactic to mimic a competitor if he is successful. Microsoft has done that before, and still does: Look at their Monad shell, which is designed by a team with an extensive Unix background. Microsoft is slowly testing the open source waters (f. ex. FlexWiki).
It's not like another poster said that they fear it would undercut their Windows business. Why would there be an Office for Mac?
So in conclusion, thanks for telling me the world isn't flat, Mr. Christensen
I guess we see this rise mostly from the various Unix brands getting thrown out of companies. My own employer is replacing Solaris (50 big servers, 250 workstations) with Linux wherever possible. A RedHat server license might be damned expensive when compared to a Microsoft server (and yes, I do mean bulk pricing for "enterprises"), but it's quite cheap if you compare it to a Solaris machine.
My iTunes library is not in my home directory. It's not even on the same drive.
Well, I should have been more precise: I meant the database that contains all songs in your library.
My audio files and my homedir reside on a server (which makes iTunes go mad when I close it as it struggles to update the database over the network (measly 100Mbit)).
Location of iTunes library file not changeable (and in users' homedir). Mine is on a server. Try LOOKING at the preferences.
Bullshit. That's the location of the audio files, not of the database.
No watching of the library folders. Try LOOKING at the menu bar. It's called Consolidate Library... Yeah, it's not automatic, but it is a one step process.
Bullshit, that's copying all the files already in the library to a central location. I want to copy files to that location and iTunes to notice them (=adding them to the library DB).
iTunes doesn't evolve the way it should. Instead of including their AirTunes, WMA support and whatnot, they should consider fixing the embarrasingly obvious faults:
- No hotkey support regardless of focus. I want to change songs while coding without switching to iTunes, damnit (and no thanks, I don't need any 3rd party mini-app)
- Location of iTunes library file not changeable (and in users' homedir). WTF? So not all users of a single machine can have a single synchronised library? So everyone has to import new songs manually. Thanks.
- No watching of the library folders. Why can't I just copy audio files in the designated folder and iTunes notices that and adds them to the library like virtually any other player?
Check his view. Even THE Apple geek loathes Apple for their lock-in and DRM crap, and so should anyone. Just because it'S Apple doesn't mean "their" DRM is fine, while "other's" is bad.
It is feasible that even home users will be encouraged by the variable structure to adapt file management functions such as searches or the file explorer to their own specifications, for example by standardizing search paths.
In short, everyone who will benefit from a unified way to organize their data regardless of type. Heh.
Your question doesn't make any sense, nor is there any information available to base an answer on, because:
Complete implementation of the system, on the other hand, is likely to take one or several years to come to fruition.
that would be SEC investigators, FBI etc i guess right ?
Erm, no. I was talking about two technological partners (my company produces audio-/video-chips), that shouldn't have had access to a contract we had with another partner.
Law enforcement could walk through our front door and demand access to the files, no lucky mis-sent mail required. Yes, files can be destroyed before they can access them, but that's with and without DRM.
The development in the corporate DRM space that threatens to overshadow all of the above is Microsoft's release of Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) for Windows Server 2003
Which "shadow" are they talking about? I'm responsible for a moderatly sized MS-network (about 1500 PCs and a 100-odd servers), and RMS is the next thing on my "to implement" list, because it will save me from clueless management people. We have had such a person kill (file system-)security by taking a file from a managemt-only file share and mailing it to the wrong distribution list. With RMS unauthorized partners will not (easily) be able to read the document.
So, in my eyes that is where DRM might actually be useful and neccessary, I don't see a "shadow".
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that you currently can't install IE7 on anything but an ENGLISH XPSP2, which excludes the majority of worldwide users.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions right now, you might be embarrassed later.
Erm, mods? AC asks a valid question. UI is a major component in an application that you would use your whole work day long. Ergonomics are not just an add on, and a standardized UI is key to user acceptance!
From TFA's summary:
Microsoft's new Vista is surprisingly entertaining. The new look of the operating system is good, and lets it outshine its Linux and Mac OS competitors. One notices repeatedly while working with this software that Microsoft scoped out its competition very carefully.
Wow.
Take note that this means they "only" got 600 milion Euros, that's ten times Sony's game division, and about as much as Microsoft's... lost.
Pee Ess Pee?
Pee Ess Three?
No problem.
Wii?
Piss! HAHA OMFG you said P!SS, ROFLMAO?
Strange, isn't it?
Penny Arcade is using it since a few weeks. I don't know if the glitches with the site lately have anything to do with that, but Tycho sometimes mentioned them himself. So, a new release should be welcome to them.
... they add support for BMC and IPMI?
Which, while fine in itself, is hardly a groundbreaking achievment for an OS, or is it? At least Windows has done that for years, and I believe Linux does as well (at least we have a working "sensor" implementation on a few RedHat / HP servers).
10$ per hour for the humans, tens of thousands for the scanners. Damn you machine-overlords!
...
On the other hand, the whole project is funded by Microsoft and Yahoo, which creates the usual good (open content!) / evil (paid for with the devil's money!) dilemma.
That's enough coffee for me, I suppose...
Well, actually I didn't mean to imply that new technology can't beat old technology.
I was just saying that the things that have lately been called "Killers" of whatever have not done so well, especially not killed their subject. As an example I provided the iPod, which has more Killers than anything, but is far from dead.
All the *-Killers have been extremely successful so far, right? No one is buying iPods anymore, right?
No?
Next story,then.
While there might be good reasons for not installing here and there, I suspect most of the so called "admins" are just to lazy or simply clueless when it comes to large scale software distribution.
Installing SP2 in a large corporate environment is nothing to sneeze at, I agree, but that's no excuse for not patching.
"DLL hell" is gone since .NET 1.1: .NET side by side execution
The product is scheduled for release in the second quarter of 2005
Companies with large numbers of clients already have that funtionality. From Microsoft's own SMS in combination with Vintela's fantastic extensions for Linux / Unix / Mac management.
The catch is, most companies are MS centric, so they use SMS to manage their clients. With Linux replacing the Unix (if any) machines in those companies it makes sense to extend the existing management product, to use ONE solution to manage ALL clients.
Check out Vintela if you haven't. They offer client management, authentication and single sign on for integration of non-MS clients into MS-centric networks.
Yes, out of date. The bottom of the page says "Copyright 2003 Michael Rolig", and the TC1000 isn't bleeding edge either.
And I don't know if Windows users should be lured into Linux on the TabletPC. Unless you want to scare the off, that is. ATM you'd just lose what's making the Tablet special (handwritting, OneNote, and so on), and if that was your first meeting with Linux, you'd never come back.
From TFA:
Windows XP SP1 with the for-free ZoneAlarm firewall, however, as well as Windows XP SP2, fared much better. Although both configurations were probed by attackers, neither was compromised during the two weeks.
Also:
The Macintosh machine, on the other hand, was assaulted as often as the Windows XP SP1 box, but never was grabbed by a hacker, thanks to the tunnel vision that attackers have for Windows. "The automated bot/worm attackers were exclusively using Windows-based attacks," said Colombano, so Mac and Linux machines are safe. For now. "[But] it would have been very vulnerable had code been written to compromise its system," he added
And finally and most importantly:
"No machine is immune," he counseled. "No human is safe from every virus, and it's the same for machines. That's why people have to have some personal responsibility about security. You have to be a good citizen on the network, so you're not only protecting yourself, but others who might be attacked from exploits originating on your machine."
And M$ software does not contain any backdoors?
Oh come on, that's an argument you would expect from a 3 year old ("but he hit me, too, mommy, I swear"), even if there were proof (is there?) that Microsoft software contained backdoors, that _can not_ be the constant to measure Open Source.
Stop letting Microsoft dictate what's ok and what's not!
And cut that "M$" crap, I'm sure someone can point you to the corresponding PA-strip.
It's an obvious business tactic to mimic a competitor if he is successful. Microsoft has done that before, and still does: Look at their Monad shell, which is designed by a team with an extensive Unix background. Microsoft is slowly testing the open source waters (f. ex. FlexWiki).
It's not like another poster said that they fear it would undercut their Windows business. Why would there be an Office for Mac?
So in conclusion, thanks for telling me the world isn't flat, Mr. Christensen
I guess we see this rise mostly from the various Unix brands getting thrown out of companies. My own employer is replacing Solaris (50 big servers, 250 workstations) with Linux wherever possible. A RedHat server license might be damned expensive when compared to a Microsoft server (and yes, I do mean bulk pricing for "enterprises"), but it's quite cheap if you compare it to a Solaris machine.
My iTunes library is not in my home directory. It's not even on the same drive.
Well, I should have been more precise: I meant the database that contains all songs in your library.
My audio files and my homedir reside on a server (which makes iTunes go mad when I close it as it struggles to update the database over the network (measly 100Mbit)).
Location of iTunes library file not changeable (and in users' homedir).
Mine is on a server. Try LOOKING at the preferences.
Bullshit. That's the location of the audio files, not of the database.
No watching of the library folders.
Try LOOKING at the menu bar. It's called Consolidate Library...
Yeah, it's not automatic, but it is a one step process.
Bullshit, that's copying all the files already in the library to a central location. I want to copy files to that location and iTunes to notice them (=adding them to the library DB).
My god.
iTunes doesn't evolve the way it should. Instead of including their AirTunes, WMA support and whatnot, they should consider fixing the embarrasingly obvious faults:
- No hotkey support regardless of focus. I want to change songs while coding without switching to iTunes, damnit (and no thanks, I don't need any 3rd party mini-app)
- Location of iTunes library file not changeable (and in users' homedir). WTF? So not all users of a single machine can have a single synchronised library? So everyone has to import new songs manually. Thanks.
- No watching of the library folders. Why can't I just copy audio files in the designated folder and iTunes notices that and adds them to the library like virtually any other player?
Check his view. Even THE Apple geek loathes Apple for their lock-in and DRM crap, and so should anyone. Just because it'S Apple doesn't mean "their" DRM is fine, while "other's" is bad.
It is feasible that even home users will be encouraged by the variable structure to adapt file management functions such as searches or the file explorer to their own specifications, for example by standardizing search paths.
In short, everyone who will benefit from a unified way to organize their data regardless of type. Heh.
Your question doesn't make any sense, nor is there any information available to base an answer on, because:
Complete implementation of the system, on the other hand, is likely to take one or several years to come to fruition.
Erm, no. I was talking about two technological partners (my company produces audio-/video-chips), that shouldn't have had access to a contract we had with another partner.
Law enforcement could walk through our front door and demand access to the files, no lucky mis-sent mail required. Yes, files can be destroyed before they can access them, but that's with and without DRM.
Which "shadow" are they talking about? I'm responsible for a moderatly sized MS-network (about 1500 PCs and a 100-odd servers), and RMS is the next thing on my "to implement" list, because it will save me from clueless management people. We have had such a person kill (file system-)security by taking a file from a managemt-only file share and mailing it to the wrong distribution list. With RMS unauthorized partners will not (easily) be able to read the document.
So, in my eyes that is where DRM might actually be useful and neccessary, I don't see a "shadow".
What's wrong with me?