It would be difficult NOT to image Windows 10 not achieving at LEAST a 5% market-share when ALL of the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 out there harass users to upgrade to 10 for free.
But... and it's a big but... not all the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 harass users to upgrade to 10 for free. Or even offer the option.
To be harassed, you:
1. Need to have a PC that's allowed to upgrade automatically. That eliminates virtually all corporate versions of Windows, which is disproportionately high amongst Windows users.
2. Need to have a PC where the user clicked on the little Windows notification icon, and went through the steps needed to "reserve" a copy of Windows 10. That's not everyone. That's probably not even the majority of the Windows users not covered by (1) above given most users have no idea what that little icon is. For them (people like my wife) the only Windows 10ism they'll ever see is something in a notification bar they usually never look at.
3. Need to have a PC that's "ready" to install. My tablet notified me after two weeks. A week or so later, my main gaming PC notified me that it was ready. They're clearly still pushing it out.
(1) and (3) are dealbreakers beyond the user's control. You could possibly argue that (2) is where the user has made some choices that relate to their interest in Windows 10.
5%, in that context, isn't bad. It's not great either, but it's certainly respectable.
It took a couple of weeks before my low end tablet received the notification, my regular gaming rig PC only got notifications last week. I don't think they're delaying it for machines with limited resources.
Yeah that link was posted to Slashdot a few days ago. It's mostly inaccurate concerning Mac OS X - the Dock, for example, was a NEXTSTEP (capitals deliberate) feature from the mid-eighties, for instance. The nearest vaguely Windows 95ish thing you can say about the OS X dock vs older OpenStep docks was that it moved to the bottom of the screen. And the comments about buttons to close/minimize etc originating in Windows 95 are completely ludicrous. It's like he never used a GUI before Windows 95. (I think Mac OS X did copy Alt-Tab though, so there's that, if he'd bothered to mention it...)
Windows 95 was a significant step forward for PC users, but it didn't really do much that wasn't out there on other platforms already. The Start button was mostly a new concept, but Amigans, GEM users, and Mac users didn't really see anything we hadn't seen before.
The Far East has plenty of factories that can ramp up production of any virtually any non-radical design in a matter of weeks. The West has no such industry, most factories aren't set up to build anything but specific products for the owners of the factory concerned, and it takes months to segue into new designs.
Which is why China is kicking our ass.
And that won't change either, as long as we assume manufacturing is somehow beneath us as a nation.
Honestly, you can't rebut someone's point about a feature of systemd simply by stating a random, completely unsuitable, feature of init. Arguments don't work that way. To rebut something you need to actually deal with your opponent's argument.
BTW init sucks. systemd isn't perfect, but at least it isn't init.
The article says they're not aiming at Apple. Instead they're actually jumping, feet first, into the commodity smartphone market. Which might seen suicidal, but, again as the article points out, that's where Scully actually excels (and probably why he didn't get as far with Apple, which was never commodity based, when he was at the helm.)
Essentially he's going to be selling nice, but not spectacular, Android phones, and using branding to differentiate the phones in the market. And he'll probably make a success of it because instead of having the overhead of a giant electronics company to contend with, unlike say Samsung, he's just having a third party put together a design, then outsourcing the manufacture of the thing, concentrating largely on quality (which affects brand) rather than features (which doesn't.)
It's not actually that exciting to nerds. The news is probably orgasm-worthy though if you work in marketing.
It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.
That is a lie. There is no "clique dominating the Hugos". There's no such thing as "tainted by crimethink", and if your inanely ridiculous wording were to be interpreted as meaning "Tainted by being nominated by the Puppy slates", at least one Hugo winner was, actually, on the Puppy slates.
You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.
No, if I felt those were appropriate, I would have said them - though that said "reactionary" does seem fair, but it's implied by what was said anyway. What I said was 100% accurate, not a strawman.
Perhaps the problem here is that you have no idea what's going on, have decided you have a bad case of identity politics, and have decided to buy a particularly weirdly spun version of what actually happened because you identify with those spinning it that way? Because there's no obvious other reason why you'd resort both to pretending I'm implying the various Hugo groups were generic enemies of so-called "SJWs" ("MRAs", "Feminists", etc), using ridiculous jargon like "crimethink", and generally pretending that something other than what happened happened.=
It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.
THERE. IS. NO. CLIQUE. The fans, not some small, closed, secretive group (which is what a clique is) voted against it. Some 6,000 paid up fans voted in this contest. When they voted No Award, which they only did in a handful of categories, No Award was the first choice of the majority.
There is simply no way to reconcile that with the notion some "clique" overrode fans' wishes. No way at all. It's mathematically impossible. Indeed, if you were to somehow mind read the fans, and murder any fan who'd vote against any work because they dislike that work's political views, you'd still have ended up with a huge plurality in favor of "No award" in those categories.
Again, I refer you to the headline. "Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes". I said this is a lie, because it is one. The fans, not the "Hugos", voted, and the "Hugos", that is, the administrators of the Hugos, accepted that vote. The only people who are refusing to accept that vote, who are refusing to submit to the fan's votes, are you and the puppies.
The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.
This actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. You're claiming identity politics, yet you're giving an example of where identity politics is being explicitly rejected.
You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".
That's... fascinating. I obviously haven't, because, no, I have never seen Slashdot's editors try to rig the Hugos by pushing a slate of works deemed inoffensive to liberals. Never. Perhaps you can link to one such story. What works did they recommend, out of interest?
The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.
They proved they were rigged by... being the ones that rigged them. That's it.
All they actually prove is that while it's possible to game the Hugos and rig the nomination list, it's not possible to win. It's only possible to win a Hugo if your work is good. Game the nominations as much as you like, you'l
Hopefully they'll give you the whole ZX81 experience and add half a dozen different shift buttons you have to press in different combinations to get the special characters/keywords you want to type.
Don't worry, most people do know what you mean, but unfortunately there's a contingent out there that equates criticizing trolls with censorship, or reads into any criticism of trolls, or proposals to discourage them (which you didn't do) with censorship.
That's Slashdot at the moment. It's a shame, but that's how far things have gone downhill. I almost miss the days when you could post something mildly critical of infringing copyrights and get flamed, but criticizing trolling, doxxing, and other Internet assholery didn't result in +5 Insightful being given to every post that calls you a Nazi.
there's no way for their readers to see that the content is wrong.
Apparently there is...
(And, to be honest, putting a debunking in a comment rather than posting a well written debunking on an independent site is probably likely to result in that debunking being taken less seriously than the latter. Comments sections were tolerated for the precisely the reason they're now being shut down - rather than havens for fact finding and discussion, they were mostly populated by trolls and Very Angry People With No Hold On Reality, which means nobody took the content seriously.)
The main difference appears to be that Virgin's system is free to outsiders. To use xfinitywifi, you must be a Comcast customer (they might also offer a PAYG option, I'm not sure - but whatever, the point is it's not free.)
No, Costco is not the use-case for the button. Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.
The button doesn't give you anything cheaply. In fact, quite the opposite, you're required to buy only a limited number of expensive brand name items that are almost certainly cheaper at the store. Nor is it designed to be pressed after you've taken careful inventory of your household consumables and determined a list of items that will need replacing soon. Instead, it's a button you press when you notice you need something.
As such, all joking aside, the latency on it is actually fairly relevant..
If I were to design something remotely useful for the purpose you imply this is for, it would be a panel that feeds general ideas into a shopping list. The panel would be covered with buttons entitled, generically "Toilet paper", "Cat food", etc. And you'd press the things you're running low on as you go around your home determining what you need. You'd then visit the store, be it online or brick-and-mortar, and the website would list options for each item, and you'd select the things you want.
But that's not what the Dash Button is. The Dash Button assumes you will only ever want Bounty Brand Toilet Paper, regardless of the price of the alternatives. That you will only want a 48 pack. That you will remember to press the button two days ahead of when the replacement is needed despite there being no organizational motivation for you to do so. And that you're prepared to do that for every single item you'd normally go to Cosco for that Amazon happens to also sell.
I know iUsers think Android users are insane for putting up with such an non-responsive UI because it frequently takes Android a few milliseconds to respond to a touch or swipe.
I've just upgraded from Win 8.1 to Win 10 on a tablet, and - for whatever reason - I'm seeing the UI switch from more or less an instant response to delays of often a minute or more, depending on the operation.
But this button takes the take. I need some Imodium(tm) brand anti-diarrheal medicine, I press the button, and two days later the button responds...
So was that a cut and paste you use whenever someone mentions DRM? Probably not a good idea to do that, as it makes you look silly when someone you're replying to isn't advocating DRM.
Yup. Besides, HTML5 has to match the critical features that attracted certain types of website to Flash in the first place.
1. It has to support streaming. There's no universally supported protocol for streaming right now, not RTMP, not HLS, nothing.
2. It has to be hard to rip the stream. There's kinda-sorta DRM in HTML5, but it requires plug-ins (actually, worse than that, in practice it requires the plug-ins be compiled into the browser executable. No more using unofficial Firefox builds), which means it has the same damned problem Flash had in the first place.
Those are just the headline issues.
We'll get there, eventually. But the DRM thing in particular isn't doing anyone any favors.
Not really, no. It recommends voting for the things you want to win before voting No Award. So even the website that has "no award" in its damned URL isn't actually advocating voting No Award for everything, or every category exclusively controlled by Puppies.
That link is not to any organized "Vote no award" block. It's a basic description of how voting works, and some commentary on the situation. Scalzi is very clear that when you see a work worthy of a Hugo, it should be listed as a choice higher than No Award.
Scalzi's instructions should be how all Hugo voters vote, at every election, regardless of whether there's an organized attempt to game the nominations or not.
It's a preference vote, there's no penalty for spreading your votes amongst authors you like vs concentrating your votes.
The reason the vote for No Award was so high (more than 50% for the first vote, meaning it was going to win anyway), was because ordinary voters either didn't like the works available to them, or because they were angry about the gaming of the nominations.
And the fact you think that someone should have been supported by the Puppy's detractors should automatically have voted for one of the options purely because she's a woman shows you're a little too wedded to identity politics in a way that the voters themselves clearly weren't.
Nope, because that's not how Hugo voting works. Hugo votes are a first choice/second choice/third choice thing. Only when one option has more than 50% of the vote is a winner declared.
So the StrawJWs can concentrate their votes as much as they want, and heroic fighters against communistic filth in our libraries Puppys can spread their votes as much as they want, it's not going to affect the outcome of the vote.
In categories where "No award" won, more than 50% of fans voted for that as their first choice. We can, reasonably, deduce from that that even if somehow those opposed to the political views of the Puppies made up the entire 40% uptick in voters, a massive plurality of the fan population would also have had "No award" as their first choice too.
Fans are angry about what's happened here. Even GRRM, who Puppies hold up as an example of a centrist because he advocated against No Award campaigns, has expressed nothing but sadness and sorrow about how the nominations were gamed. To expect, even if the voting block had been arbitrarily switched back to the 2010 list (two years before SP), anything other than what just happened is unrealistic.
Well, at least the first sentence of your comment describes the rest of it.
Stop framing this as "SJWs" vs Puppies. It's not. It's Fans vs Puppies. How, exactly, can you believe for a second that the majority of fans wouldn't be upset by two politicized groups (both leaning the same way, to different extremes, indeed) mostly successfully gaming the nomination process so that only works they approve of would be available to vote upon?
Slashdot Mirror
But... and it's a big but... not all the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 harass users to upgrade to 10 for free. Or even offer the option.
To be harassed, you:
1. Need to have a PC that's allowed to upgrade automatically. That eliminates virtually all corporate versions of Windows, which is disproportionately high amongst Windows users.
2. Need to have a PC where the user clicked on the little Windows notification icon, and went through the steps needed to "reserve" a copy of Windows 10. That's not everyone. That's probably not even the majority of the Windows users not covered by (1) above given most users have no idea what that little icon is. For them (people like my wife) the only Windows 10ism they'll ever see is something in a notification bar they usually never look at.
3. Need to have a PC that's "ready" to install. My tablet notified me after two weeks. A week or so later, my main gaming PC notified me that it was ready. They're clearly still pushing it out.
(1) and (3) are dealbreakers beyond the user's control. You could possibly argue that (2) is where the user has made some choices that relate to their interest in Windows 10.
5%, in that context, isn't bad. It's not great either, but it's certainly respectable.
It took a couple of weeks before my low end tablet received the notification, my regular gaming rig PC only got notifications last week. I don't think they're delaying it for machines with limited resources.
Yeah that link was posted to Slashdot a few days ago. It's mostly inaccurate concerning Mac OS X - the Dock, for example, was a NEXTSTEP (capitals deliberate) feature from the mid-eighties, for instance. The nearest vaguely Windows 95ish thing you can say about the OS X dock vs older OpenStep docks was that it moved to the bottom of the screen. And the comments about buttons to close/minimize etc originating in Windows 95 are completely ludicrous. It's like he never used a GUI before Windows 95. (I think Mac OS X did copy Alt-Tab though, so there's that, if he'd bothered to mention it...)
Windows 95 was a significant step forward for PC users, but it didn't really do much that wasn't out there on other platforms already. The Start button was mostly a new concept, but Amigans, GEM users, and Mac users didn't really see anything we hadn't seen before.
The Far East has plenty of factories that can ramp up production of any virtually any non-radical design in a matter of weeks. The West has no such industry, most factories aren't set up to build anything but specific products for the owners of the factory concerned, and it takes months to segue into new designs.
Which is why China is kicking our ass.
And that won't change either, as long as we assume manufacturing is somehow beneath us as a nation.
Honestly, you can't rebut someone's point about a feature of systemd simply by stating a random, completely unsuitable, feature of init. Arguments don't work that way. To rebut something you need to actually deal with your opponent's argument.
BTW init sucks. systemd isn't perfect, but at least it isn't init.
The article says they're not aiming at Apple. Instead they're actually jumping, feet first, into the commodity smartphone market. Which might seen suicidal, but, again as the article points out, that's where Scully actually excels (and probably why he didn't get as far with Apple, which was never commodity based, when he was at the helm.)
Essentially he's going to be selling nice, but not spectacular, Android phones, and using branding to differentiate the phones in the market. And he'll probably make a success of it because instead of having the overhead of a giant electronics company to contend with, unlike say Samsung, he's just having a third party put together a design, then outsourcing the manufacture of the thing, concentrating largely on quality (which affects brand) rather than features (which doesn't.)
It's not actually that exciting to nerds. The news is probably orgasm-worthy though if you work in marketing.
That is a lie. There is no "clique dominating the Hugos". There's no such thing as "tainted by crimethink", and if your inanely ridiculous wording were to be interpreted as meaning "Tainted by being nominated by the Puppy slates", at least one Hugo winner was, actually, on the Puppy slates.
No, if I felt those were appropriate, I would have said them - though that said "reactionary" does seem fair, but it's implied by what was said anyway. What I said was 100% accurate, not a strawman.
Perhaps the problem here is that you have no idea what's going on, have decided you have a bad case of identity politics, and have decided to buy a particularly weirdly spun version of what actually happened because you identify with those spinning it that way? Because there's no obvious other reason why you'd resort both to pretending I'm implying the various Hugo groups were generic enemies of so-called "SJWs" ("MRAs", "Feminists", etc), using ridiculous jargon like "crimethink", and generally pretending that something other than what happened happened.=
THERE. IS. NO. CLIQUE. The fans, not some small, closed, secretive group (which is what a clique is) voted against it. Some 6,000 paid up fans voted in this contest. When they voted No Award, which they only did in a handful of categories, No Award was the first choice of the majority.
There is simply no way to reconcile that with the notion some "clique" overrode fans' wishes. No way at all. It's mathematically impossible. Indeed, if you were to somehow mind read the fans, and murder any fan who'd vote against any work because they dislike that work's political views, you'd still have ended up with a huge plurality in favor of "No award" in those categories.
Again, I refer you to the headline. "Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes". I said this is a lie, because it is one. The fans, not the "Hugos", voted, and the "Hugos", that is, the administrators of the Hugos, accepted that vote. The only people who are refusing to accept that vote, who are refusing to submit to the fan's votes, are you and the puppies.
This actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. You're claiming identity politics, yet you're giving an example of where identity politics is being explicitly rejected.
That's... fascinating. I obviously haven't, because, no, I have never seen Slashdot's editors try to rig the Hugos by pushing a slate of works deemed inoffensive to liberals. Never. Perhaps you can link to one such story. What works did they recommend, out of interest?
They proved they were rigged by... being the ones that rigged them. That's it.
All they actually prove is that while it's possible to game the Hugos and rig the nomination list, it's not possible to win. It's only possible to win a Hugo if your work is good. Game the nominations as much as you like, you'l
Hopefully they'll give you the whole ZX81 experience and add half a dozen different shift buttons you have to press in different combinations to get the special characters/keywords you want to type.
ASTRONOMER FIGHT!
(Imagines two bespectacled old men in white coats taking terms to bash each other over the head with large hand held telescopes)
Don't worry, most people do know what you mean, but unfortunately there's a contingent out there that equates criticizing trolls with censorship, or reads into any criticism of trolls, or proposals to discourage them (which you didn't do) with censorship.
That's Slashdot at the moment. It's a shame, but that's how far things have gone downhill. I almost miss the days when you could post something mildly critical of infringing copyrights and get flamed, but criticizing trolling, doxxing, and other Internet assholery didn't result in +5 Insightful being given to every post that calls you a Nazi.
Apparently there is...
(And, to be honest, putting a debunking in a comment rather than posting a well written debunking on an independent site is probably likely to result in that debunking being taken less seriously than the latter. Comments sections were tolerated for the precisely the reason they're now being shut down - rather than havens for fact finding and discussion, they were mostly populated by trolls and Very Angry People With No Hold On Reality, which means nobody took the content seriously.)
Quite, I find the idea Slashdot might always have been a haven for terrible spelling completely rediculous.
The main difference appears to be that Virgin's system is free to outsiders. To use xfinitywifi, you must be a Comcast customer (they might also offer a PAYG option, I'm not sure - but whatever, the point is it's not free.)
First of all, I invite you to read this Wikipedia page.
But going onto your debunking of a joke:
No, Costco is not the use-case for the button. Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.
The button doesn't give you anything cheaply. In fact, quite the opposite, you're required to buy only a limited number of expensive brand name items that are almost certainly cheaper at the store. Nor is it designed to be pressed after you've taken careful inventory of your household consumables and determined a list of items that will need replacing soon. Instead, it's a button you press when you notice you need something.
As such, all joking aside, the latency on it is actually fairly relevant..
If I were to design something remotely useful for the purpose you imply this is for, it would be a panel that feeds general ideas into a shopping list. The panel would be covered with buttons entitled, generically "Toilet paper", "Cat food", etc. And you'd press the things you're running low on as you go around your home determining what you need. You'd then visit the store, be it online or brick-and-mortar, and the website would list options for each item, and you'd select the things you want.
But that's not what the Dash Button is. The Dash Button assumes you will only ever want Bounty Brand Toilet Paper, regardless of the price of the alternatives. That you will only want a 48 pack. That you will remember to press the button two days ahead of when the replacement is needed despite there being no organizational motivation for you to do so. And that you're prepared to do that for every single item you'd normally go to Cosco for that Amazon happens to also sell.
Most people will never find it useful.
He's not defending bad engineering, he attacked it too. He's attacking what he sees as a poor criticism/solution.
Well, kinda. The latency is awful.
I know iUsers think Android users are insane for putting up with such an non-responsive UI because it frequently takes Android a few milliseconds to respond to a touch or swipe.
I've just upgraded from Win 8.1 to Win 10 on a tablet, and - for whatever reason - I'm seeing the UI switch from more or less an instant response to delays of often a minute or more, depending on the operation.
But this button takes the take. I need some Imodium(tm) brand anti-diarrheal medicine, I press the button, and two days later the button responds...
So was that a cut and paste you use whenever someone mentions DRM? Probably not a good idea to do that, as it makes you look silly when someone you're replying to isn't advocating DRM.
Yup. Besides, HTML5 has to match the critical features that attracted certain types of website to Flash in the first place.
1. It has to support streaming. There's no universally supported protocol for streaming right now, not RTMP, not HLS, nothing.
2. It has to be hard to rip the stream. There's kinda-sorta DRM in HTML5, but it requires plug-ins (actually, worse than that, in practice it requires the plug-ins be compiled into the browser executable. No more using unofficial Firefox builds), which means it has the same damned problem Flash had in the first place.
Those are just the headline issues.
We'll get there, eventually. But the DRM thing in particular isn't doing anyone any favors.
Not really, no. It recommends voting for the things you want to win before voting No Award. So even the website that has "no award" in its damned URL isn't actually advocating voting No Award for everything, or every category exclusively controlled by Puppies.
That link is not to any organized "Vote no award" block. It's a basic description of how voting works, and some commentary on the situation. Scalzi is very clear that when you see a work worthy of a Hugo, it should be listed as a choice higher than No Award.
Scalzi's instructions should be how all Hugo voters vote, at every election, regardless of whether there's an organized attempt to game the nominations or not.
The reason the vote for No Award was so high (more than 50% for the first vote, meaning it was going to win anyway), was because ordinary voters either didn't like the works available to them, or because they were angry about the gaming of the nominations.
And the fact you think that someone should have been supported by the Puppy's detractors should automatically have voted for one of the options purely because she's a woman shows you're a little too wedded to identity politics in a way that the voters themselves clearly weren't.
What is your point here? Should he put nominees he feels should not win the Hugo higher up than No award?
Out of interest, how do you think people should vote?
Nope, because that's not how Hugo voting works. Hugo votes are a first choice/second choice/third choice thing. Only when one option has more than 50% of the vote is a winner declared.
So the StrawJWs can concentrate their votes as much as they want, and heroic fighters against communistic filth in our libraries Puppys can spread their votes as much as they want, it's not going to affect the outcome of the vote.
In categories where "No award" won, more than 50% of fans voted for that as their first choice. We can, reasonably, deduce from that that even if somehow those opposed to the political views of the Puppies made up the entire 40% uptick in voters, a massive plurality of the fan population would also have had "No award" as their first choice too.
Fans are angry about what's happened here. Even GRRM, who Puppies hold up as an example of a centrist because he advocated against No Award campaigns, has expressed nothing but sadness and sorrow about how the nominations were gamed. To expect, even if the voting block had been arbitrarily switched back to the 2010 list (two years before SP), anything other than what just happened is unrealistic.
Well, at least the first sentence of your comment describes the rest of it.
Stop framing this as "SJWs" vs Puppies. It's not. It's Fans vs Puppies. How, exactly, can you believe for a second that the majority of fans wouldn't be upset by two politicized groups (both leaning the same way, to different extremes, indeed) mostly successfully gaming the nomination process so that only works they approve of would be available to vote upon?