--It wasn't that they moved to unity, it's that they released an alpha quality Unity with a release.
No, for most it pretty much IS simply that they went with Unity. If you are power user with big monitors (or multiples, or big multiples etc) where desktop space isn't at a premium, then why the hell would anyone want to hide buttons and options? Why make multi-tasking so hard? Why SEARCH for applications rather than hierarchical menus grouped logically by task?
My desktop isn't a damn phone thank you very much. I don't want it to be a phone and I don't want it function like a phone. And in the case of Windows 8 metro, it is just a blatent attempt to wrest control away from the OWNER of the device/computer. They envy the fact that apple users have given up every last semblance of control over look, feel and function of their electronic devices and that that control can be monetized. They can finally lock out apps they don't like and with UEFI they can finally lock you in to their OS so you can't weasel out of it after the fact.
No thank you. I will control my own devices, I'll be a power user with menus and widgets, multiple screens and multiple windows that AREN'T maximized.
I think you are missing the point. Security is great. It should be one of the most important things these days. But the security that should trump all others is the trust between the OWNER and the device. Not between the company that makes the hardware or software and the device. Once someone has bought, they should have ultimate say over what it does and does not do, what it runs, and who it communicates with and what data is passed in any communication.
Nahhh.. Never happen. Smaller more portable devices are coming and filling in the gaps and taking market share, but there will always be power users who need as much power as can be fit in a form factor about the size of a PC and that power will keep increasing just as it always has. Pundits just WANT the PC to go away because they realize they screwed up in that early product cycle by giving all the power to the users. Users have the ability to change anything or do anything they want and can un-cripple anything they do to that class of devices. They want to introduce something shiny and new that is locked down and sealed box like smart phones where they can cripple them and sell the features back to you piecemill.
Everyone is headed down the minimalist road because the of the netbook and tablet craze. Some people still choose high horsepower machines with dual (or more) screens. Look at Ubuntu's unity desktop. The whole damn OS has chosen that path. Buttons, menus, and options that aren't buried and are ready at hand are a GOOD thing when you have screen real estate to burn. Many people still do.
It annoys me how clueless people are to choice. No one can argue that Macs have a beautiful interface but it simply is not OK for a person or computer company to dictate that it can't be changed, what apps are OK or not OK, or how to use YOUR device. Get a clue people.
Both sides (as well as Windows and MacOS desktops) need to learn that it is not acceptable to lock me out of my own device.... under any circumstance. It is not acceptable to encrypt any communication in a way that *** I *** as the owner of the device am refused from seeing what is sent. In other words, my device shall not be used to keep me out of the loop. Trust is between me and my device and me and any company I choose to deal with. Not between the company and my device.
The internet really just needs to be classified as a utility and be done with it. Just like the phone company and your telephone. All traffic must be carried equally and the carriers are responsible for nothing going across those wires. Each end of the call pays for ONLY their own traffic. No traffic is blocked. There are already all laws in place to cover any infringing activity one might attempt on the internet or over a phone conversation.
I am IT the security guru for my company. We use whitelist based security across the board. If it doesn't provide a direct benefit to the company it isn't allowed. It simply isn't worth the risk. Our company has 0 malware infections in 15 years. Yes there are complaints from users but opening up to any level of risk to make them happy when it provides no company benefit is ridiculous. There is enough risk from legitimate business uses of the internet.
I saw this and fumed up also. Trusted computing has shown up.
I should never have to prove anything about MY computer to a third party. If trusted computing doesn't work for the owner of the computer it is running on, why is it there?
Why the hell do web sites not just provide downloads in standard formats.
Embedded, streaming video in any format is evil. I want to view video in the player of my choice that I trust to be secure (for me), and to view it in that player at the size of my choice not the size you chose to embed it in the web page.
Flash video sucks for exactly those reasons. Yea.. I know it can be downloaded too, but why have to bother with it? Just encode it in MPEG4 and offer it for download. Users will be much happier in the long run.
It is good that it is out of touch with the average computer user.
Average computer users don't care about security. The attitude that average computer users take towards security is the reason why ISP's take it upon themselves to do security on behalf of the user. I don't want to have to search for a decent ISP who doesn't block ports or make security decisions for me. It should be my responsibility to secure my own machine and if I fail at than, then they have the right to boot me off the network.
Linux expects a certain level of proficiency, but it takes the correct approach in that it doesn't mandate it.
I disagree with tuning makes this better period. Take for instance the stupid insistance that all games nowadays have weapons balance. That is tuning where none was needed and "balance" has killed 1st person shooters online. A guy with a machine gun SHOULDN'T compete with a guy with a rocket launcher.. sorry. A guy that got lucky and got the best weapon in the game SHOULD go on a tear for a while while he has it. It makes it all the more sweet (and addicting) when you yourself finally manage to get the best weapon and go on a tear yourself for a while.
Many many times, its the unpredicted and unintended things that make the games special i.e. rocket jumps, jump strafing, etc.
Too many content providers reduce ads to simply a monetary issue. Too many consumers reduce ads to just "I don't want to bother seeing them".
People have to start realizing that they are in control of their own destiny. Ads are in many cases even a security risk. I say what my computer does and does not do or display. When I allow a site that I visit to choose FOR me what does or does not display or get downloaded to my computer, I am no longer in control of my security.
I do NOT trust "creepy marketing guy" to make good judgements about what ads are safe for me. I don't even trust him to review that they are not carrying malware.
These companies need some good old fashioned competition. When I buy unlimited internet, I don't expect security decisions to be made for me or any ports to be blocked. I want raw network access, no value added crap and I want to be able to do with it as I please.
I think it is time the gub'ment to step in and finally classify ISP's as common carriers that provide a raw network level service.
Re:If they can fix stuff at their end... that's co
on
Google Fixes IE Bug
·
· Score: 1
The fact that this is patcheable with no exchange of files on the user side is bogus. All google did was close the vulnerability that allowed the problem to be exploited by people without their knowledge or approval. If the software on the local installation previously ALLOWED access to the local filesystem and no files were changed on that local software then it still allows local file access.
Great... more tools MS programmers can't use correctly.
There are still major companies out there that can't code an application that works correctly out of the box on a multi user operating system.
Standard reply... "Gotta be an admin to run our software". I know I can audit and give an application what it needs to run... but why should I have to??? Why can't most windows programmers get it through their thick skulls how to code software that a non-admin can use?
Ok Brainiacs at the RIAA... Your software must be really intelligent to figure out that just because a file is in MP3 format and its content is a copyrighted song that it was created illegally. It must somehow figure out that the user of the computer created it himself from his legally purchased CD.
What???!!!??? It doesn't care? OHHHHH.. I see.. if it doesn't contain your DRM you AUTOMATICALLY classify it as illegal?
Well this particular case IS hogwash. Licensed software is a different story, but for purchased goods the following is already LAW.
You pay money for a product. From the second that payment changes hands, the product is yours. If you did not enter into a contract BEFORE purchase of those goods, then there IS NO CONTRACT.
People don't want a processor whose main purpose in life was to artificially refresh Intels control on much of the Intellectual Property associated with the processors. AMD is getting too close, so they change everything and hope to charge royalties.
Everybody always mentions just the annoying ads. What about any ad that tracks me. Advertisers have 0 right to any knowledge about me... even if it is anonymous. If they want to use passive tracking, like checking web hits, fine and good. If I pick up a newspaper they can't tell if I read an ad, why should they be able to online? They don't have a right to that knowledge and advertising is a risk. Get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
--It wasn't that they moved to unity, it's that they released an alpha quality Unity with a release.
No, for most it pretty much IS simply that they went with Unity. If you are power user with big monitors (or multiples, or big multiples etc) where desktop space isn't at a premium, then why the hell would anyone want to hide buttons and options? Why make multi-tasking so hard? Why SEARCH for applications rather than hierarchical menus grouped logically by task?
My desktop isn't a damn phone thank you very much. I don't want it to be a phone and I don't want it function like a phone. And in the case of Windows 8 metro, it is just a blatent attempt to wrest control away from the OWNER of the device/computer. They envy the fact that apple users have given up every last semblance of control over look, feel and function of their electronic devices and that that control can be monetized. They can finally lock out apps they don't like and with UEFI they can finally lock you in to their OS so you can't weasel out of it after the fact.
No thank you. I will control my own devices, I'll be a power user with menus and widgets, multiple screens and multiple windows that AREN'T maximized.
D@mn. Even their choice of terminology pisses me off.
"OEMs having the flexibility to decide who manages security certificates and how to allow customers"
To OEM's and Microsoft, How about once I've paid for the computer you F-off unless the HARDWARE breaks. The OWNER makes the decisions. Period.
I think you are missing the point. Security is great. It should be one of the most important things these days. But the security that should trump all others is the trust between the OWNER and the device. Not between the company that makes the hardware or software and the device. Once someone has bought, they should have ultimate say over what it does and does not do, what it runs, and who it communicates with and what data is passed in any communication.
Nahhh.. Never happen. Smaller more portable devices are coming and filling in the gaps and taking market share, but there will always be power users who need as much power as can be fit in a form factor about the size of a PC and that power will keep increasing just as it always has.
Pundits just WANT the PC to go away because they realize they screwed up in that early product cycle by giving all the power to the users. Users have the ability to change anything or do anything they want and can un-cripple anything they do to that class of devices. They want to introduce something shiny and new that is locked down and sealed box like smart phones where they can cripple them and sell the features back to you piecemill.
Everyone is headed down the minimalist road because the of the netbook and tablet craze. Some people still choose high horsepower machines with dual (or more) screens. Look at Ubuntu's unity desktop. The whole damn OS has chosen that path. Buttons, menus, and options that aren't buried and are ready at hand are a GOOD thing when you have screen real estate to burn. Many people still do.
It annoys me how clueless people are to choice. No one can argue that Macs have a beautiful interface but it simply is not OK for a person or computer company to dictate that it can't be changed, what apps are OK or not OK, or how to use YOUR device. Get a clue people.
Both sides (as well as Windows and MacOS desktops) need to learn that it is not acceptable to lock me out of my own device.... under any circumstance.
It is not acceptable to encrypt any communication in a way that *** I *** as the owner of the device am refused from seeing what is sent. In other words, my device shall not be used to keep me out of the loop. Trust is between me and my device and me and any company I choose to deal with. Not between the company and my device.
The internet really just needs to be classified as a utility and be done with it. Just like the phone company and your telephone. All traffic must be carried equally and the carriers are responsible for nothing going across those wires. Each end of the call pays for ONLY their own traffic. No traffic is blocked. There are already all laws in place to cover any infringing activity one might attempt on the internet or over a phone conversation.
I am IT the security guru for my company. We use whitelist based security across the board. If it doesn't provide a direct benefit to the company it isn't allowed. It simply isn't worth the risk. Our company has 0 malware infections in 15 years. Yes there are complaints from users but opening up to any level of risk to make them happy when it provides no company benefit is ridiculous. There is enough risk from legitimate business uses of the internet.
I saw this and fumed up also. Trusted computing has shown up.
I should never have to prove anything about MY computer to a third party. If trusted computing doesn't work for the owner of the computer it is running on, why is it there?
They still don't get it. Making it freely available is only a fraction of the puzzle.
No DRM and the biggy... no damn proprietary player. Let the users play it with the player of their choice.... so use an open format for the video.
Why the hell do web sites not just provide downloads in standard formats.
Embedded, streaming video in any format is evil. I want to view video in the player of my choice that I trust to be secure (for me), and to view it in that player at the size of my choice not the size you chose to embed it in the web page.
Flash video sucks for exactly those reasons. Yea.. I know it can be downloaded too, but why have to bother with it? Just encode it in MPEG4 and offer it for download. Users will be much happier in the long run.
Oh yea.. forgot, no one cares about the users.
It is good that it is out of touch with the average computer user.
Average computer users don't care about security. The attitude that average computer users take towards security is the reason why ISP's take it upon themselves to do security on behalf of the user. I don't want to have to search for a decent ISP who doesn't block ports or make security decisions for me. It should be my responsibility to secure my own machine and if I fail at than, then they have the right to boot me off the network.
Linux expects a certain level of proficiency, but it takes the correct approach in that it doesn't mandate it.
I disagree with tuning makes this better period. Take for instance the stupid insistance that all games nowadays have weapons balance. That is tuning where none was needed and "balance" has killed 1st person shooters online. A guy with a machine gun SHOULDN'T compete with a guy with a rocket launcher.. sorry. A guy that got lucky and got the best weapon in the game SHOULD go on a tear for a while while he has it. It makes it all the more sweet (and addicting) when you yourself finally manage to get the best weapon and go on a tear yourself for a while.
Many many times, its the unpredicted and unintended things that make the games special i.e. rocket jumps, jump strafing, etc.
Too many content providers reduce ads to simply a monetary issue. Too many consumers reduce ads to just "I don't want to bother seeing them".
People have to start realizing that they are in control of their own destiny. Ads are in many cases even a security risk. I say what my computer does and does not do or display. When I allow a site that I visit to choose FOR me what does or does not display or get downloaded to my computer, I am no longer in control of my security.
I do NOT trust "creepy marketing guy" to make good judgements about what ads are safe for me. I don't even trust him to review that they are not carrying malware.
As long as I am the one in control of my own computer and what it does (or does not do) instead of a mega corporation, then DRM is fine and dandy.
These companies need some good old fashioned competition. When I buy unlimited internet, I don't expect security decisions to be made for me or any ports to be blocked. I want raw network access, no value added crap and I want to be able to do with it as I please.
I think it is time the gub'ment to step in and finally classify ISP's as common carriers that provide a raw network level service.
The fact that this is patcheable with no exchange of files on the user side is bogus. All google did was close the vulnerability that allowed the problem to be exploited by people without their knowledge or approval. If the software on the local installation previously ALLOWED access to the local filesystem and no files were changed on that local software then it still allows local file access.
Great... more tools MS programmers can't use correctly.
There are still major companies out there that can't code an application that works correctly out of the box on a multi user operating system.
Standard reply... "Gotta be an admin to run our software". I know I can audit and give an application what it needs to run... but why should I have to??? Why can't most windows programmers get it through their thick skulls how to code software that a non-admin can use?
Ok Brainiacs at the RIAA... Your software must be really intelligent to figure out that just because a file is in MP3 format and its content is a copyrighted song that it was created illegally. It must somehow figure out that the user of the computer created it himself from his legally purchased CD.
What???!!!??? It doesn't care? OHHHHH.. I see.. if it doesn't contain your DRM you AUTOMATICALLY classify it as illegal?
Thats BRILLIANT!!!!!
Also.. the most important factor. The Firefox community fixes the problems.
There are flaws in IE that have been known for better than 6-8 months and still there is no fix.
I wish there was a way to refuse to allow any of the tax dollars a person pays in to be used for something so stupid.
Why rebuild it. It WILL happen again. Spend the money to relocate the people and I would happily watch my tax money being spent.
Well this particular case IS hogwash. Licensed software is a different story, but for purchased goods the following is already LAW.
You pay money for a product. From the second that payment changes hands, the product is yours. If you did not enter into a contract BEFORE purchase of those goods, then there IS NO CONTRACT.
People don't want a processor whose main purpose in life was to artificially refresh Intels control on much of the Intellectual Property associated with the processors. AMD is getting too close, so they change everything and hope to charge royalties.
Everybody always mentions just the annoying ads. What about any ad that tracks me. Advertisers have 0 right to any knowledge about me... even if it is anonymous. If they want to use passive tracking, like checking web hits, fine and good. If I pick up a newspaper they can't tell if I read an ad, why should they be able to online? They don't have a right to that knowledge and advertising is a risk. Get over it.