I'm arguing that they won't need to. I'm arguing that if you've had a repository system for a couple of years- the very idea would be so strange, unusual and convoluted that most people will say "bugger that, too much effort"
Huh ? People aren't running random stuff because they're trying to find a word processor or an mp3 player, they're running random stuff because it says "click here to see boobies", or "you win $1 million if you enter this competition".
Or, to put it another way, the primary vector of malware is *not* the kind of software you find in a Linux repo.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, my bad. I got it confused with the Cube.
Thought I would argue that a B&W, 8MB-RAM, 25Mhz '040 wouldn't have run NeXTSTEP particularly well...
That's what GNU/Linux's repository concept does - it takes the task of risk assessment and gives it to people who are trained at for the job so by definition they do it better.
You're seriously trying to argue people prepared to open *password protected zipfiles* and execute the contents therein, suddenly won't because of software repositories ?
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
They're MY standards and I can set them as low as I desire.
Well, sure, but it pretty much nullifies anything you have to say when your standards are so superficial that they basically define every GUI known to man as a copy of the Macintosh.
There was almost-zero learning curve because there was no significant difference jumping from Mac to Win95.
There are, in fact, many differences between MacOS and Windows. The Taskbar is, of course, the most prominent, but there's also basic window manipulation (maximise vs expand, minimise vs hide or shade, resize from anywhere vs corner), application behaviour (window-centric vs app-centric model, closing windows vs quitting apps), multitasking (pre-emptive vs co-operative, switching windows vs switching app + switching window), launching apps (Start Menu vs finding them on the hard disk or manual population of the Apple Menu), keyboard accessibility (comprehensive - though this was inherited from Windows 3.x - vs very little), file management (split-pane tree+file list vs per-folder windows) and the Desktop folder (single location vs multiple).
That's just the differences off the top of my head in the *GUI*, without even firing up one of my old Macs to compare. I'm sure if I wanted to sit down and think about it I could find even more in the GUI, and definitely many in the lower level parts of the system (eg: dynamic vs static disk cache, memory protection, threading, multitasking).
However, the point is that none of these are "insignificant" differences unless your point of reference is so vague as to capture every known platform with a GUI. Certainly any one of them, alone, is probably sufficient to cause the average user confusion (witness people who have trouble just going from one version of Windows to the next, despite the fundamental GUI being basically unchanged since Windows 95).
You say that and demonstrate you probably don't even remember 1995. TODAY it's commonplace, but prior to 1995 shutdown procedures were rare. Mac was the only OS I had ever encountered with a shutdown procedure. So it was surprise to see it suddenly appear somewhere other than a Mac, and with the exact same wording.
Any UNIX machine would have a shutdown procedure. Windows NT had one. NeXT had one. OS/2 had one. RiscOS had one. Heck, I'm pretty sure even AmigaOS and Atari's TOS had one. Pretty much any system with a write-back disk cache would have had some sort of "shutdown procedure" to ensure buffers were properly flushed.
The idea of a "shutdown procedure" being so unique to the Mac in 1995 as being indicative of a "copy", is just plain wrong. Indeed, one could easily make a more compelling argument that even Windows 3.x had a "shutdown procedure" in having to exit it back to DOS.
I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp for some organizations.
Because even after multiple demonstrations otherwise, upper and executive management cling tightly to the fantasy that experienced mid-level+ IT (and other) staff are generic and can be disposed of and replaced at will, with essentially no loss to productivity.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
If I'd been around this conversation, I'd have shown you both my NeXTstation. OS/2 was a dog compared to that, and Win95 wasn't even comparable.
Of course, you could probably have bought somewhere between 5 and 10 PCs running OS/2 or Windows 95 for the same cost as a NeXTStation capable of running NeXT well...
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
I hope it would have more in common, the Windows of today was born from Microsoft's work developing OS/2 version 3.
No, the Windows of today *is* what would have been OS/2 3.0. What eventually became the OS/2 3.0 (and later) that people know was a further development of OS/2 2.0, which has - for all intents and purposes - nothing in common with Windows NT at all (as even a cursory architectural comparison will show).
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Trashcan added to Win95? Check.
Finder-style interface on Win95 (instead of the mess of windows on 3.1)? Check.
Mac-style restart/shutdown procedure added to Win95? Check.
Well, when you set your standards for what counts as a "copy" so ludicrously low, anything counts as one.
They even copied the same, "It is now safe to switch off your computer" screen dialogue. The first time I used Windows95 I had to double check to make sure I had not accidentally sat in front of a Mac.
Wow. Even though they have nothing in common other than somewhat similar wording ? Do you have a similar reaction whenever you sit down in front of _every_ OS that has a shutdown procedure ?
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Ironically, MS is doing the same thing with Windows 7, simply priced too high for me. So I stick to XP and linux.
Allowing for inflation, Windows 7 costs the same as XP did.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
People forget that most of those also failed to run under Windows 95 unless you ran them in a dedicated DOS session. You could do the same thing with OS/2 via Dual Boot to DOS or simply booting to a separate partition, but most folks were willing to complain about it not working than actually trying to solve the issue. That isn't OS/2's fault, that's partisanship and/or laziness.
Or maybe they just didn't have a copy of DOS to boot to...
"You can always just boot to DOS" is not really a compelling argument as to why OS/2 was as good, when DOS was an extra expense to have, required you to have a FAT-formatted partition, etc, etc.
By "Win1," I suspect you mean Windows 3.x. the 16-bit programs almost all ran (and they should... WinOS2 was a copy of Windows 3.1 that was recompiled from the original source and re-engineered as a DPMI client. There were very few programs outside of system utilities, and that didn't use the Win32S 32-bit extention-of-the-month-club DLL, that wouldn't run.
Yes, I meant Win16, and there were plenty of things that didn't run in WinOS/2. Not to mention it, similarly, required the additional purchase of Windows 3.x.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
It WAS a hybrid and not a full 32-bit OS.
If you had a full regiment of 32-bit drivers and applications, then the amount of 16-bit code actually being used in Windows 95 was negligible to the point of irrelevance.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Filesystem would be the first to spring to mind. By using DOS, they limited themself to FAT (if you want to have the advantages you talk about) and we got the huge kludge they used to implement long filenames.
You sound like someone complaining Windows 95 wasn't Windows NT. Clearly, you weren't the target audience, for whom compatibility and relatively low-end hardware were constraining factors.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
A single crashed program could freeze the whole OS (cooperative tasking rather than preemptive tasking).
Windows 95 pre-emptive multitasked 32-bit applications. Only 16-bit applications were co-operatively multitasked.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but Windows 95 did - contrary to IBM's claims - a better job of running Windows and DOS programs.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
I used OS/2 for several years, and there were *lots* of DOS and Win1 programs it couldn't run, or couldn't run well, that ran fine on Windows 95 (or, at worst, by booting to straight DOS). This was particularly true of games, as it was also the era of DOS4GW and other extenders, and begin to push the limits of hardware capabilities.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Windows 95 was cheap. That was it's only real benefit.
Yeah, apart from the single most important one - it ran more things that people wanted to run.
Can you say, with a straight face, that you would apply that same line of reasoning to starving children somewhere that will be dead in 3 weeks? Just harvest their organs now?
Can you say, with a straight face, that a clump of cells in a petri dish is in any way equivalent to grown child ?
Nobody here is talking about "high-volume pedestrian areas". No idea where you brought that from.
Because pretty much every single example that's been used about how dangerous speeding is, has referred to pedestrians being killed. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the discussion is about high pedestrian areas, since they generally aren't waltzing out onto arterial roads and freeways without looking.
The focus on nearly the entire discussion in this, and other, threads has been about danger to pedestrians. If that doesn't imply a pedestrian-dense area, I don't know what does.
Well, that is fine. I was replying to your dismissal of (high) speed as a hazard.
I never said high speed wasn't a hazard.
I know that, but that is an impractical assumption. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the driver would know that he is going to hit a pedestrian at least a few milli-seconds before actually hitting. Even if he does not notice this until after hitting - high speed may be a cause of this not noticing.
No. Inattentiveness is the cause of not noticing a pedestrian.
That, or the pedestrian deliberately and recklessly moving in front of the vehicle. Not all the blame should lie with the car in these situations.
That is what my post described - not sure if you read it to understand or just to rebut on irrelevant points. The story should start from the point when he does notice, and reasons why he notices late or not at all. So in fact, it is your assumption that is artificial.
That is a ridiculous condition that merely reinforces my point. If a driver doesn't see a pedestrian, it's because he's not paying attention, or doing something else wrong. To ignore those *critical* factors and focus solely on speed - which, as I said earlier, is largely an incidental factor at that point - is disingenuous at best.
I don't remember mentioning any child or a ball.
Your example was a pedestrian very suddenly stepping in front of a vehicle traveling at speed. It's a variation on a theme. Generally doing exactly what you are doing - describing a situation where only vehicles traveling at the speed you think they should be are "safe", and anyone else is "dangerous".
In fact that "conclusion" is not rational at all.
It is when the only argument you're trying to make is "slower == safer".
I just want to prove that however inconvenient it may sound, high speed does increase number and intensity of accidents.
If that were true then the fastest roads would be the most dangerous and have the most accidents. Neither of these things are true.
Firstly, because the stopping distance from 80km/h is about 180 feet - with about 50 of that being reaction time. If you don't notice someone until they're 20 feet away, then you're going to hit them at either 80km/h or 120km/h - at which point survival is going to be almost completely an issue of luck (the survival rate for pedestrian accidents over about 60km/h is essentially zero).
Secondly, because driving 80km/h in high-volume pedestrian areas isn't speeding, it's recklessly dangerous driving. People prepared to do that are not thinking rationally enough to be deterred by a fine.
Thirdly, because my comment was based on the assumption of hitting a pedestrian at that speed. Not the obligatory artificially constructed scenario you are using where the vehicle travelling at whatever speed you want to be used pulls up a foot short of the child running out for a ball.
Finally, because the only rational conclusion to your argument is that we return to the system of every car having someone in front of it waving a flag and ringing a bell.
Hit someone at 50 or 60, and they'll be extracting what remains of your corpse from a Prius compacted down to the size of a microwave.
I must admit I couldn't find any statistics, but I would expect that - outside of corner cases like direct head-on hits - you're more likely than not to survive crashing in a modern vehicle like a Prius. Assuming you're wearing a seatbelt of course.
[Warning: I am the original poster] Once drivers understand speeding is gonna them money, they will slow down (thus reducing car accidents and fatalities). If it works like this everywhere in this world, it will also work in my city.
Firstly, no it doesn't. This is especially true if it's only a monetary fine and not some sort of other points-based, lose-your-license scheme. Believe me, I come from Australia - which has probably the strictest and most widespread speed enforcement in the western world, particularly in Victoria and NSW - yet road safety is no better here than it is in other, similar, countries.
Secondly, the strictest speed enforcement in the world will not make the roads safer if they are full of reckless drivers. This is particularly true when you're talking about pedestrian fatalities.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm arguing that they won't need to. I'm arguing that if you've had a repository system for a couple of years- the very idea would be so strange, unusual and convoluted that most people will say "bugger that, too much effort"
Huh ? People aren't running random stuff because they're trying to find a word processor or an mp3 player, they're running random stuff because it says "click here to see boobies", or "you win $1 million if you enter this competition".
Or, to put it another way, the primary vector of malware is *not* the kind of software you find in a Linux repo.
Indeed, my bad. I got it confused with the Cube.
Thought I would argue that a B&W, 8MB-RAM, 25Mhz '040 wouldn't have run NeXTSTEP particularly well...
That's what GNU/Linux's repository concept does - it takes the task of risk assessment and gives it to people who are trained at for the job so by definition they do it better.
You're seriously trying to argue people prepared to open *password protected zipfiles* and execute the contents therein, suddenly won't because of software repositories ?
They're MY standards and I can set them as low as I desire.
Well, sure, but it pretty much nullifies anything you have to say when your standards are so superficial that they basically define every GUI known to man as a copy of the Macintosh.
There was almost-zero learning curve because there was no significant difference jumping from Mac to Win95.
There are, in fact, many differences between MacOS and Windows. The Taskbar is, of course, the most prominent, but there's also basic window manipulation (maximise vs expand, minimise vs hide or shade, resize from anywhere vs corner), application behaviour (window-centric vs app-centric model, closing windows vs quitting apps), multitasking (pre-emptive vs co-operative, switching windows vs switching app + switching window), launching apps (Start Menu vs finding them on the hard disk or manual population of the Apple Menu), keyboard accessibility (comprehensive - though this was inherited from Windows 3.x - vs very little), file management (split-pane tree+file list vs per-folder windows) and the Desktop folder (single location vs multiple).
That's just the differences off the top of my head in the *GUI*, without even firing up one of my old Macs to compare. I'm sure if I wanted to sit down and think about it I could find even more in the GUI, and definitely many in the lower level parts of the system (eg: dynamic vs static disk cache, memory protection, threading, multitasking).
However, the point is that none of these are "insignificant" differences unless your point of reference is so vague as to capture every known platform with a GUI. Certainly any one of them, alone, is probably sufficient to cause the average user confusion (witness people who have trouble just going from one version of Windows to the next, despite the fundamental GUI being basically unchanged since Windows 95).
You say that and demonstrate you probably don't even remember 1995. TODAY it's commonplace, but prior to 1995 shutdown procedures were rare. Mac was the only OS I had ever encountered with a shutdown procedure. So it was surprise to see it suddenly appear somewhere other than a Mac, and with the exact same wording.
Any UNIX machine would have a shutdown procedure. Windows NT had one. NeXT had one. OS/2 had one. RiscOS had one. Heck, I'm pretty sure even AmigaOS and Atari's TOS had one. Pretty much any system with a write-back disk cache would have had some sort of "shutdown procedure" to ensure buffers were properly flushed.
The idea of a "shutdown procedure" being so unique to the Mac in 1995 as being indicative of a "copy", is just plain wrong. Indeed, one could easily make a more compelling argument that even Windows 3.x had a "shutdown procedure" in having to exit it back to DOS.
I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp for some organizations.
Because even after multiple demonstrations otherwise, upper and executive management cling tightly to the fantasy that experienced mid-level+ IT (and other) staff are generic and can be disposed of and replaced at will, with essentially no loss to productivity.
If I'd been around this conversation, I'd have shown you both my NeXTstation. OS/2 was a dog compared to that, and Win95 wasn't even comparable.
Of course, you could probably have bought somewhere between 5 and 10 PCs running OS/2 or Windows 95 for the same cost as a NeXTStation capable of running NeXT well...
I hope it would have more in common, the Windows of today was born from Microsoft's work developing OS/2 version 3.
No, the Windows of today *is* what would have been OS/2 3.0. What eventually became the OS/2 3.0 (and later) that people know was a further development of OS/2 2.0, which has - for all intents and purposes - nothing in common with Windows NT at all (as even a cursory architectural comparison will show).
Trashcan added to Win95? Check.
Finder-style interface on Win95 (instead of the mess of windows on 3.1)? Check.
Mac-style restart/shutdown procedure added to Win95? Check.
Well, when you set your standards for what counts as a "copy" so ludicrously low, anything counts as one.
They even copied the same, "It is now safe to switch off your computer" screen dialogue. The first time I used Windows95 I had to double check to make sure I had not accidentally sat in front of a Mac.
Wow. Even though they have nothing in common other than somewhat similar wording ? Do you have a similar reaction whenever you sit down in front of _every_ OS that has a shutdown procedure ?
Ironically, MS is doing the same thing with Windows 7, simply priced too high for me. So I stick to XP and linux.
Allowing for inflation, Windows 7 costs the same as XP did.
People forget that most of those also failed to run under Windows 95 unless you ran them in a dedicated DOS session. You could do the same thing with OS/2 via Dual Boot to DOS or simply booting to a separate partition, but most folks were willing to complain about it not working than actually trying to solve the issue. That isn't OS/2's fault, that's partisanship and/or laziness.
Or maybe they just didn't have a copy of DOS to boot to...
"You can always just boot to DOS" is not really a compelling argument as to why OS/2 was as good, when DOS was an extra expense to have, required you to have a FAT-formatted partition, etc, etc.
By "Win1," I suspect you mean Windows 3.x. the 16-bit programs almost all ran (and they should ... WinOS2 was a copy of Windows 3.1 that was recompiled from the original source and re-engineered as a DPMI client. There were very few programs outside of system utilities, and that didn't use the Win32S 32-bit extention-of-the-month-club DLL, that wouldn't run.
Yes, I meant Win16, and there were plenty of things that didn't run in WinOS/2. Not to mention it, similarly, required the additional purchase of Windows 3.x.
It WAS a hybrid and not a full 32-bit OS.
If you had a full regiment of 32-bit drivers and applications, then the amount of 16-bit code actually being used in Windows 95 was negligible to the point of irrelevance.
Filesystem would be the first to spring to mind. By using DOS, they limited themself to FAT (if you want to have the advantages you talk about) and we got the huge kludge they used to implement long filenames.
You sound like someone complaining Windows 95 wasn't Windows NT. Clearly, you weren't the target audience, for whom compatibility and relatively low-end hardware were constraining factors.
A single crashed program could freeze the whole OS (cooperative tasking rather than preemptive tasking).
Windows 95 pre-emptive multitasked 32-bit applications. Only 16-bit applications were co-operatively multitasked.
Yes, but Windows 95 did - contrary to IBM's claims - a better job of running Windows and DOS programs.
I used OS/2 for several years, and there were *lots* of DOS and Win1 programs it couldn't run, or couldn't run well, that ran fine on Windows 95 (or, at worst, by booting to straight DOS). This was particularly true of games, as it was also the era of DOS4GW and other extenders, and begin to push the limits of hardware capabilities.
Windows 95 was cheap. That was it's only real benefit.
Yeah, apart from the single most important one - it ran more things that people wanted to run.
Can you say, with a straight face, that you would apply that same line of reasoning to starving children somewhere that will be dead in 3 weeks? Just harvest their organs now?
Can you say, with a straight face, that a clump of cells in a petri dish is in any way equivalent to grown child ?
Treating human life as something that should be nurtured and not harvested is not something that is exclusive to religion.
How do you feel about IVH and various other similar forms of infertility treatments ?
But not being able to check if the person is doing the work they get payed to do, is just stupid.
Traditionally, this was done by people called "managers", who decided on things like "goals" the employee had to meet to be considered "productive".
The US has had centuries of continuity and progress.
The US is simply lucky enough to be able to export (most of) its conflicts. Which it has been doing with consistency and enthusiasm.
Nobody here is talking about "high-volume pedestrian areas". No idea where you brought that from.
Because pretty much every single example that's been used about how dangerous speeding is, has referred to pedestrians being killed. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the discussion is about high pedestrian areas, since they generally aren't waltzing out onto arterial roads and freeways without looking.
The focus on nearly the entire discussion in this, and other, threads has been about danger to pedestrians. If that doesn't imply a pedestrian-dense area, I don't know what does.
Well, that is fine. I was replying to your dismissal of (high) speed as a hazard.
I never said high speed wasn't a hazard.
I know that, but that is an impractical assumption. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the driver would know that he is going to hit a pedestrian at least a few milli-seconds before actually hitting. Even if he does not notice this until after hitting - high speed may be a cause of this not noticing.
No. Inattentiveness is the cause of not noticing a pedestrian.
That, or the pedestrian deliberately and recklessly moving in front of the vehicle. Not all the blame should lie with the car in these situations.
That is what my post described - not sure if you read it to understand or just to rebut on irrelevant points. The story should start from the point when he does notice, and reasons why he notices late or not at all. So in fact, it is your assumption that is artificial.
That is a ridiculous condition that merely reinforces my point. If a driver doesn't see a pedestrian, it's because he's not paying attention, or doing something else wrong. To ignore those *critical* factors and focus solely on speed - which, as I said earlier, is largely an incidental factor at that point - is disingenuous at best.
I don't remember mentioning any child or a ball.
Your example was a pedestrian very suddenly stepping in front of a vehicle traveling at speed. It's a variation on a theme. Generally doing exactly what you are doing - describing a situation where only vehicles traveling at the speed you think they should be are "safe", and anyone else is "dangerous".
In fact that "conclusion" is not rational at all.
It is when the only argument you're trying to make is "slower == safer".
I just want to prove that however inconvenient it may sound, high speed does increase number and intensity of accidents.
If that were true then the fastest roads would be the most dangerous and have the most accidents. Neither of these things are true.
Now, how is that "purely a matter of luck" here ?
Firstly, because the stopping distance from 80km/h is about 180 feet - with about 50 of that being reaction time. If you don't notice someone until they're 20 feet away, then you're going to hit them at either 80km/h or 120km/h - at which point survival is going to be almost completely an issue of luck (the survival rate for pedestrian accidents over about 60km/h is essentially zero).
Secondly, because driving 80km/h in high-volume pedestrian areas isn't speeding, it's recklessly dangerous driving. People prepared to do that are not thinking rationally enough to be deterred by a fine.
Thirdly, because my comment was based on the assumption of hitting a pedestrian at that speed. Not the obligatory artificially constructed scenario you are using where the vehicle travelling at whatever speed you want to be used pulls up a foot short of the child running out for a ball.
Finally, because the only rational conclusion to your argument is that we return to the system of every car having someone in front of it waving a flag and ringing a bell.
Hit someone at 50 or 60, and they'll be extracting what remains of your corpse from a Prius compacted down to the size of a microwave.
I must admit I couldn't find any statistics, but I would expect that - outside of corner cases like direct head-on hits - you're more likely than not to survive crashing in a modern vehicle like a Prius. Assuming you're wearing a seatbelt of course.
You don't see the logical fallacy there?
Er, no ?
[Warning: I am the original poster] Once drivers understand speeding is gonna them money, they will slow down (thus reducing car accidents and fatalities). If it works like this everywhere in this world, it will also work in my city.
Firstly, no it doesn't. This is especially true if it's only a monetary fine and not some sort of other points-based, lose-your-license scheme. Believe me, I come from Australia - which has probably the strictest and most widespread speed enforcement in the western world, particularly in Victoria and NSW - yet road safety is no better here than it is in other, similar, countries.
Secondly, the strictest speed enforcement in the world will not make the roads safer if they are full of reckless drivers. This is particularly true when you're talking about pedestrian fatalities.