IMNSHO Notes is the absolute worst piece of software I've ever used. Let me list all of the things which I think make it a terrible waste of energy:
1. Its interface in bizarre and unintuitive. 2. Its search tool totally blows. You can type "John Hobs" and it will be completly unable to find "John Hobbs." But it just might find "Theresa Hulshult." ??? 3. Slower than a (insert a witty comparison here). 4. Until 4.6 it was amazingly unstable. It would crash 5 times more often than windoze 95! Strange to think that IBM has more money than God but it takes them until *release 4.6* to make their product stable. 5. The message box that simply states "Cannot execute the desired action." (Translated to english: double your Notes support costs.) 6. Now which obscure menu to I pull down to see the headers? Now which obscure wizard do I navigate to create a filter? Now which obscure form must I trudge through to see the headers? (Translated to english: triple your Notes support costs.) 7. Those idiotic hieroglyphs when you're typing in your password. 8. It's a memory pig. God forbid I open Notes *and* Microsloth Turd at the same time! 9. Stupid proprietary mail protocol. 10. The Notes server has now been up for a total of *two days!* Let's all celebrate!
Our orginazation has gone through great pains having had to use Bogus Bloats. Almost everyone in IS loathes and detests it. I truly believe that if not for the pointy hairs in the world Notes would simply cease to exist. I admit that I have never used its highly-praised "discussion" features, but as bad as it is everywhere else, I'd sooner eat my own hand than be forced to spend even *more* time in that stinking, maggot-infested piece of shit that some losers at IBM dare to call "software."
Updating... Updating... Updating... Notes makes Windows95 look like a masterpiece, and I hate Windows95 bitterly.
>*laugh* You know nothing about me, VL, and nothing about God. He loves you. I only wish that you'd realize it.
Just like he loves all of the thousands of children who he allows to suffer and die every day of starvation, disease, and abuse. If you want to accuse someone of spite and hate then I suggest you look no farther than your own God. I don't have to be a omnipotent, omniscient, or all-loving being to want to do away with the suffering of innocent children. But apparently your God (who the Christians claim is all three) is quite content to see those things go on every day.
>Morality derives from God, whose teachings can be found in the Bible.
I guess animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, and sexual plunder would all be moral then, since God commanded them.
And yet if other parts of the bible are taken literally then the bat is a bird, the ark rested on more than one mountain at once, the earth has for corners, sticks can turn into snakes, and the sky has a window in it. I'd suggest trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 before trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with evolutionism.
I have never met a Christian who, when confronted with a contradictory or ridiculous scriptural passage, did not play the "That's what it says, but that's not what it means" game. Tell me, does the earth have four corners?
And as far as accountability goes, God killed Herod for the petty act of *not* praising him. David banged Bathsheba and arranged for her husband's death and God let him be king. Furthermore (I'm still better than God who is a wimp and a liar), I have blasphemed every day for the past two years deliberately and God sees fit that I survive. Explain.
It's not a bluff. And here we go. Remember: since you are a Xtian, I trust that you will have scripture to substatiate all your claims. Believe you me that I will have scripture to substantiate mine:
1. How must I be saved? (Be very careful how you answer this one!)
2. How can God be moral when he calls for ethnic clensing and the murder of infants by ripping them out of the wombs of their pregnant mothers?
3. Why would God kill people for petty reasons, such as touching the ark of the covenant or merely NOT praising God (Acts 12:23) and yet he let me survive after committing deliberate blashpemy?
4. Is a bat a bird?
5. Jesus made a fig tree wither. Did it wither immediately or not immediately?
6. How many Gods are there - 1, 3, or 4?
7. Did both thieves crucified beside Jesus curse him, or did one curse him and the other praise him?
8. How can God be both just and merciful?
9. How can God be considered just when he punishes many for the acts of one?
10. How can God be considered just when he punishes one for the acts of many?
11. How can God be considered merciful when he would punish multitudes of people with eternal torture?
You make some good points and also some that I'd like to address.
My point was that people want to *think* that they can, or at very best have someone to blame if they can't. Not to throw around cliches, but let's call it "mindshare..." People need to *think* that they're getting something supportable by someone other than a 15 year-old hacker in mom's basement on a cable modem.
I agree even though it really sucks. But I think that there is even more suckiness: My company has "standardized" on Lotus Notes and it is the worst piece of software I've ever used -- literally. When we had a "town hall" meeting with our CIO he even agreed that it totally sucks and has given our company nothing but problems. We won't change though (though we're thinking about it -- please God) because of the cost in doing so. For me, personally, switching is a non-issue. For a company that has to think about training it's a different story that I'm not quite savvy enough to grasp yet.
They implicitly use sendmail because it's there, and because no one has found a compelling reason to replace it. It is free, and if it breaks, it will get fixed for free. Why should Microsoft or anyone else try to change this? It wouldn't be cost effective.
I disagree. I think Microsoft would absolutely love to destroy all traces of sendmail and replace it with some software that they own running some protocol that they own. And in the long run, when you can tax every packet that moves on your proprietary internet, that is extremely cost effective. I think that the real reason that Microsoft dropped the ball on the Internet is because they were compeletely focused on making MSN the next big thing. MSN ran on software that they owned. The reason why the license for NT Workstation is so restrictive compared to NT Server is because Microsoft wants to force you to buy IIS (IIS, like Internet Explorer, is NOT free). That's one more web server that Microsoft owns every time a person "upgrades" to NT Server.
If we're talking about OSS as the "future of modern software", that's probably a lost cause.
How do you know? You give no support to this statement despite the evidence that OSS / free software continues to grow in popularity. Personally I believe that free software will continue to grow in popularity as more and more people become educated in using and programming computers. And I think that will happen primarily because of the popularity of the Internet. Why should I be compelled to buy someone's software when there is a greater and greater chance as time goes on that someone has written an equally good product and is giving it away?
But when it comes to Actual Users, in my "much bally-hooed real world," they choose things that they can trust, and that they can feel they get support on.
How do you define an "Actual User"? I think there are many reasons why someone chooses software. I think most people use Microsoft out of ignorance, because of the lack of applications on other operating systems, out of force (try and buy a laptop without a Microsoft OS preinstalled on it that you are forced to pay for), or becuase their company makes them do it. I fall in to the last category as my work forces me to use Win95 even though I do most of my work in xterms running from HP-(S)UX boxes running on (expensive) Exceed. At home I have 3 Linux boxes and one BeOS box. Interesting that the BeOS cost me $70 while the Linux installations for the other three computers cost me $2 (CheapBytes). Right now I have found much more support for the Linux OS than for BeOS.
And what is your definition of "support"? In business-like discussions I often hear people say that they wouldn't want a business to use any free OS because they want to have the comfort of knowing they can "sue" the software manufacturer if it breaks. When was the last time a company ever sued Microsoft because their software was buggy? I remember Bill Gates stating "There are no bugs in our software." He, personally, has one hundred billion dollars to back that statement up in court.
Slashdot Mirror
IMNSHO Notes is the absolute worst piece of software I've ever used. Let me list all of the things which I think make it a terrible waste of energy:
... Updating ... Updating ... Notes makes Windows95 look like a masterpiece, and I hate Windows95 bitterly.
1. Its interface in bizarre and unintuitive.
2. Its search tool totally blows. You can type "John Hobs" and it will be completly unable to find "John Hobbs." But it just might find "Theresa Hulshult." ???
3. Slower than a (insert a witty comparison here).
4. Until 4.6 it was amazingly unstable. It would crash 5 times more often than windoze 95! Strange to think that IBM has more money than God but it takes them until *release 4.6* to make their product stable.
5. The message box that simply states "Cannot execute the desired action." (Translated to english: double your Notes support costs.)
6. Now which obscure menu to I pull down to see the headers? Now which obscure wizard do I navigate to create a filter? Now which obscure form must I trudge through to see the headers? (Translated to english: triple your Notes support costs.)
7. Those idiotic hieroglyphs when you're typing in your password.
8. It's a memory pig. God forbid I open Notes *and* Microsloth Turd at the same time!
9. Stupid proprietary mail protocol.
10. The Notes server has now been up for a total of *two days!* Let's all celebrate!
Our orginazation has gone through great pains having had to use Bogus Bloats. Almost everyone in IS loathes and detests it. I truly believe that if not for the pointy hairs in the world Notes would simply cease to exist. I admit that I have never used its highly-praised "discussion" features, but as bad as it is everywhere else, I'd sooner eat my own hand than be forced to spend even *more* time in that stinking, maggot-infested piece of shit that some losers at IBM dare to call "software."
Updating
>*laugh* You know nothing about me, VL, and nothing about God. He loves you. I only wish that you'd realize it.
Just like he loves all of the thousands of children who he allows to suffer and die every day of starvation, disease, and abuse. If you want to accuse someone of spite and hate then I suggest you look no farther than your own God. I don't have to be a omnipotent, omniscient, or all-loving being to want to do away with the suffering of innocent children. But apparently your God (who the Christians claim is all three) is quite content to see those things go on every day.
>Morality derives from God, whose teachings can be found in the Bible.
I guess animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, and sexual plunder would all be moral then, since God commanded them.
Believe you me, I have a lot to say about your response. But I'd rather continue this in email.
Try loundry@smyrnacable.net. As soon as I get a message from you I can reply.
And yet if other parts of the bible are taken literally then the bat is a bird, the ark rested on more than one mountain at once, the earth has for corners, sticks can turn into snakes, and the sky has a window in it. I'd suggest trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 before trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with evolutionism.
I have never met a Christian who, when confronted with a contradictory or ridiculous scriptural passage, did not play the "That's what it says, but that's not what it means" game. Tell me, does the earth have four corners?
And as far as accountability goes, God killed Herod for the petty act of *not* praising him. David banged Bathsheba and arranged for her husband's death and God let him be king. Furthermore (I'm still better than God who is a wimp and a liar), I have blasphemed every day for the past two years deliberately and God sees fit that I survive. Explain.
It's not a bluff. And here we go. Remember: since you are a Xtian, I trust that you will have scripture to substatiate all your claims. Believe you me that I will have scripture to substantiate mine:
1. How must I be saved? (Be very careful how you answer this one!)
2. How can God be moral when he calls for ethnic clensing and the murder of infants by ripping them out of the wombs of their pregnant mothers?
3. Why would God kill people for petty reasons, such as touching the ark of the covenant or merely NOT praising God (Acts 12:23) and yet he let me survive after committing deliberate blashpemy?
4. Is a bat a bird?
5. Jesus made a fig tree wither. Did it wither immediately or not immediately?
6. How many Gods are there - 1, 3, or 4?
7. Did both thieves crucified beside Jesus curse him, or did one curse him and the other praise him?
8. How can God be both just and merciful?
9. How can God be considered just when he punishes many for the acts of one?
10. How can God be considered just when he punishes one for the acts of many?
11. How can God be considered merciful when he would punish multitudes of people with eternal torture?
12. What happens to the souls of aborted fetuses?
Please use email.
I agree even though it really sucks. But I think that there is even more suckiness: My company has "standardized" on Lotus Notes and it is the worst piece of software I've ever used -- literally. When we had a "town hall" meeting with our CIO he even agreed that it totally sucks and has given our company nothing but problems. We won't change though (though we're thinking about it -- please God) because of the cost in doing so. For me, personally, switching is a non-issue. For a company that has to think about training it's a different story that I'm not quite savvy enough to grasp yet.
I disagree. I think Microsoft would absolutely love to destroy all traces of sendmail and replace it with some software that they own running some protocol that they own. And in the long run, when you can tax every packet that moves on your proprietary internet, that is extremely cost effective. I think that the real reason that Microsoft dropped the ball on the Internet is because they were compeletely focused on making MSN the next big thing. MSN ran on software that they owned. The reason why the license for NT Workstation is so restrictive compared to NT Server is because Microsoft wants to force you to buy IIS (IIS, like Internet Explorer, is NOT free). That's one more web server that Microsoft owns every time a person "upgrades" to NT Server.
How do you know? You give no support to this statement despite the evidence that OSS / free software continues to grow in popularity. Personally I believe that free software will continue to grow in popularity as more and more people become educated in using and programming computers. And I think that will happen primarily because of the popularity of the Internet. Why should I be compelled to buy someone's software when there is a greater and greater chance as time goes on that someone has written an equally good product and is giving it away?
How do you define an "Actual User"? I think there are many reasons why someone chooses software. I think most people use Microsoft out of ignorance, because of the lack of applications on other operating systems, out of force (try and buy a laptop without a Microsoft OS preinstalled on it that you are forced to pay for), or becuase their company makes them do it. I fall in to the last category as my work forces me to use Win95 even though I do most of my work in xterms running from HP-(S)UX boxes running on (expensive) Exceed. At home I have 3 Linux boxes and one BeOS box. Interesting that the BeOS cost me $70 while the Linux installations for the other three computers cost me $2 (CheapBytes). Right now I have found much more support for the Linux OS than for BeOS.
And what is your definition of "support"? In business-like discussions I often hear people say that they wouldn't want a business to use any free OS because they want to have the comfort of knowing they can "sue" the software manufacturer if it breaks. When was the last time a company ever sued Microsoft because their software was buggy? I remember Bill Gates stating "There are no bugs in our software." He, personally, has one hundred billion dollars to back that statement up in court.