I'm sure that Firefox has quite a bit of QA done to it... but it's usefulness relies too much on extensions, which we don't that many assurances about. Fair enough. However, the usefulness of Firefox (and any other web browser - proprietary or not) also depends even more on web pages. The QA on those are even more nebulous and are a larger potential threat than browser extensions / modules.
Now - the danger here is to entirely discount the importance of QA. It's a good thing to do. But be careful about putting too much faith in to it.
I'm not saying commercial software is perfect in that regard (there have been cases of commerically distributed software containing malware too), but at least there is generally some level of quality control there. Quality control fails in the proprietary software world (aside - OSS is commercial as well) but hey... at least it's there! Meanwhile, this particular case is supposed to be an example of how OSS has no quality control? And we see the same failures in the quality-controlled proprietary world? I'm not following your logic.
You ask how long it would take to find a virus slipped in to an OSS program? Interesting question. A little bit of Googling would show where major OSS projects were compromised and malicious code was discovered and cleaned within a rather short period of time. Of course - that's not quite a virus. One of the ELF infecting viruses made its rounds by being attached to a supposed exploit and being tossed out in to the community. That had a short run. Although I wouldn't quite classify this as a OSS example. The interesting thing here is that for an environment that you claim lacks quality control, there's something going on that's catching this stuff.
I was kind of hoping it wouldn't be a "comedy", but instead a situation where they were cleverly taking old science-fiction ideas and applying them as though they were still considered possible. Maybe it'll be the next Springtime for Hitler.
This isn't about Windows. This isn't exactly about Microsoft. This is about Microsoft's marketing and associated "facts". There's the "war".
Sure - there could be a little less hyperbole. That crossed my mind as I was reading the article. The author would make an excellent observation and then bury it with a few lines of text that came across like gloating. Pity. One could distract the reader and cause them to miss the point with that kind of behavior.
But the underlying premise is solid. It might sound archaic to our jaded readership... but how about a little truth in advertising?
In this example, why would Exchange hold anyone back? Aren't there alternatives to Exchange? Why not switch to one of the alternatives? Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange (which is, interestingly enough, a Microsoft product)? Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs? Why should and email / calendaring system dictate an entire platform and infrastructure choice?
Bonus anecdote: my colleague also wanted to get pricing on sides for the racks in our server room, in order to improve airflow (they're completely open at the moment). The same boss said we don't need them, because hot air won't be coming out the back of the servers. It appears our boss feels that if cold air goes in the front, then cold air ought to come out the back. Sadly my colleague was too awed by this to press further, so we'll probably never know the full thought process behind this. One coworker's "bad boss" story involves a cooling failure. The server room's cooling system went down and they were scrambling to keep things stable until repairs were made. The boss' solution was to put in some fans. Fans would cool things down. He refused to acknowledge there was an issue with simply circulating ever-hotter air. I have to agree; moving air is the key. Unfortunately, it is also the key to convection ovens.
I don't know how much more elaborate it could be stated..
Why are (most) forums spammed less than inboxes? You apparently don't run a forum that uses popular software. The little forum I run, on our own private domain, gets more spambots than our catch-all email configuration sees spam.
Of course, this could be argued as another piece of evidence against standardization. I have no doubt we get attention from spambots due to search results looking for the forum software we run. If I hid or otherwise obfuscated this information, we'd probably see less nefarious traffic. I could also do away with the "prove you know something about the subject of this forum" type question that has done wonders to foil spambots (although its also foiled legitimate users before as well).
But that doesn't mean the forum is superior. I still run email addresses on the domain because it remains a really useful tool. Email is powerful because of its standardization. We use it for internal communications and technical administration of the site. People can quickly and easily contact us via email without the additional overhead of forum accounts, etc. Usually the email we get comes from folks having trouble with their forum account.
The forum is a great tool. It serves its purpose well (although not the only way to do things by a long shot). But email serves it's place as well. I'd be really wary of throwing too many wrenches in to either system.
They are issued under penalty of perjury. So if you just don't like the name because you think it violates your trademark, issuing a takedown notice is not a good idea.
While this is true - I've yet to see any of the numerous questionable uses of the DMCA lead to charges of perjury. Have I missed something?
You actually said this about America with a straight face:
The law runs the country. This is a nation of law, not a country of lawyers who are best paid by large content owners. The law does run this country. We are, in fact, a nation of laws. The reason for jaded attitudes is over the question of how many laws are bought-and-paid-for by interests that do not represent the American people as a whole.
Do you think it really matters to the underprivileged kids in Africa whether their software is free as in speech or free as in beer or just a license to use? Give the kid a chocolate bar. Think issues like nutrition and whether they'll be hungry in the near future are going to matter to them? Not likely. But it doesn't mean these issues won't affect them.
Others have already pointed out that it wasn't Java but Solaris. It should be noted that this is exactly what the whole current case is about (or at the least, one of the points). Novell is claiming that SCOg had no right to provide Sun with a license that would allow them to Open Source SVRX code.
Then I just wonder why Sun, IBM and Microsoft feel it's appropriate to issue a binding commitment not to sue people who use their specifiations, but Adobe doesn't. Shennanigans. Smoke, mirrors, and waving hands. Just having a "commitment" doesn't mean much. Critics have charged that Sun, IBM, and Microsoft's covenants are not equal. The devil's in the details. And a big detail in the whole scheme of things is that these covenants are used as much for publicity and marketing games as actual commitments.
Having said that - the general concern is definitely a valid one. We've seen how the game is played these days. Lifting the restriction to a port of call means very little until we can be sure there's no submarines lurking below. The specification is an excellent first step. Now where's the license? That'll be the details where we have to look for the devil.
Yeah - but those stats are for Linux. I should have noted that the copy-and-paste I did was from Source Forge's download stats on the Pidgin project. Now - there's Linux and source code in there too. But I would suspect that a lot of those are people grabbing Windows installs.
Too many people who think they know better than the end-users, and too much work being done by lots of people on different, competing projects. You need to unite your efforts, not work against each others. This fork is just another proof (and WTH is with that "premier multi-protocol instant messaging client" remark? Nobody uses that on Windows and Mac OS X).
The whole KDE vs Gnome debate is one of the things that keeps Windows on PCs.
Posted as AC because of Linux and OSS zealots. I'll agree so far as it falls in line with the original premise - developers should be listening to their intended users. However, it ends there.
Is this an example of OSS weakness? Hardly. This is actually a strength. If you think the "god complex" issue doesn't exist outside OSS, you've not been paying attention to the IT industry. The difference there is that if your vendor doesn't support your needs, you have to completely ditch the product and go to a competitor.
OSS is different only in that when a developer fails to deliver, the project gets forked. Ideas must survive on merit, not just because of buy-in from a final-say manager. If the fork really does do something people want, it flourishes. If not, it withers. Occasionally forked projects merge with the original. Sometimes two very distinctly different and strong ideas manage their own following. In all these scenarios, the end user ends up with more choices. Choice is good.
Does this process divide efforts? To some extent, yes. But that's the nature of the beast.
Two side comments...
KDE vs Gnome is a red herring. It doesn't matter. They are largely interchangeable. Anyone whos in a position to care can make that choice. It's hardly the show stopper critics make it out to be.
The difference with Open Source and other groups of talented, opinionated, and driven technical groups is that with OSS the "discussions" are held in mostly public forums.
I'm looking on the interwebs right now for an adopt-an-elephant program where I can name my elephant "Internet Elephant". I will then refer to him as both Internet and Elephant and note that the associated semantics population has more than trippled in the last few years.
And zealot mentality isn't necessary logical. To them, a major OSS figure being convicted of murder is a blow to OSS. Thus it is a bad thing and they don't want to believe it's real. Or it could be that a group of geeks and social misfits who have a history of unfair treatment because they don't fit in identify with Reiser in a case that seems to hinge on Reiser's personality. It doesn't make them right. And, in fact, it's still an emotional response to a situation which overcomes what would normally be critical thought from a crowd that's usually analytical to a fault.
I wouldn't dismiss zealotry outright. But not everything that touches Open Source involves it. I'd expect that pinning this sentiment entirely on OSS zealotry is a real stretch.
The OLPC issue is a complete red herring. Not only does it have nothing to do with this subject, you've really missed the discussion on OLPC (or are dismissing it outright).
One side thought - OS zealotry isn't limited to OSS. But that's another subject entirely.
Thanks for making my point for me. People who tell the Linux community what it really needs to hear, get punished. Everyone with valuable insights gets the message: shut up. Just shut up. Even if you apologize for, god forbid, getting angry when you can't get into your computer despite extensive precautions. You're a TERRORIST for talking about it in the first place. The problem is, when you come across like a troll it's not surprising that your message gets treated like a troll; insight or not.
Linux usablity discussions pop up fairly frequently. There are always folks who point out various flaws with various aspects of Linux. Amazingly, not all of them get tagged as trolls. The reason for that is an exercise for the reader. You'd do well to give it some thought. Unless, of course, you're a troll.
The point is that you should be *at least* as good as Windows, and right now software installation on Linux isn't. I'm not convinced that this is a correct statement. If you look at the article, you'll note that there is a situation where the test subject was able to download an install file for Ubuntu, clicky-clicky, and install. No problems. Windows-like easy.
Of course, it wasn't that way the first time the test subject ran in to an issue of installing software. That time, she found herself at an install page for the application vendor with no Ubuntu package. Nothing she found lead her to clicky-clicky ease-of-install.
And this is the kicker. The install process is, in fact, "just as good" as Windows. But the companies involved have to do a decent job on their end. Windows is just as much lost when a vendor doesn't provide the clicky-clicky easy package.
Does that mean a vendor should publish packages for all the major (if not every) Linux distro? It would be nice - its always a pleasure to see your favorite distro as a download option. But it's not necessary. I like the default tarball option. But that's because I know what to do with it. The clicky-clicky Windows-trained end user doesn't. But there are clicky-clicky install packaging techniques that aren't particularly distro-specific.
Others have also already pointed out that Ubuntu comes with a really nice package system (thanks Debian!) that draws from a large repository of pre-packaged software. An experienced Ubuntu user would have known to check here first. And that's the other issue. Linux does things differently - does that mean it's wrong?
I'm a big fan of tests like this. They uncover things we don't expect and could learn from. The trick is to realize what are things that are just broke, what are things that need to be tweaked, and what are simply different.
Or to put it another way, if you were to take the paragraph above and adapt it as a screenplay, the result would be better than any Uwe Boll movie. Unless that screenplay was then given to Uwe Boll.
OK. That's not fair.
Unless that screenplay was used for the basis of a video game which in turn was the basis for a Uwe Boll movie.
no one comments yet on a General's usage of "YGTBKM! LOL!"? I figured it would be incorporated in to some unit patch for the Command. It has a certain simularity to the origins of the Wild Weasel missions and the traditional "YGBSM" patch.
Slashdot Mirror
You must've stopped reading before the second paragraph which begins "On a more serious note..."
Now - the danger here is to entirely discount the importance of QA. It's a good thing to do. But be careful about putting too much faith in to it.
You ask how long it would take to find a virus slipped in to an OSS program? Interesting question. A little bit of Googling would show where major OSS projects were compromised and malicious code was discovered and cleaned within a rather short period of time. Of course - that's not quite a virus. One of the ELF infecting viruses made its rounds by being attached to a supposed exploit and being tossed out in to the community. That had a short run. Although I wouldn't quite classify this as a OSS example. The interesting thing here is that for an environment that you claim lacks quality control, there's something going on that's catching this stuff.
This isn't about Windows. This isn't exactly about Microsoft. This is about Microsoft's marketing and associated "facts". There's the "war".
Sure - there could be a little less hyperbole. That crossed my mind as I was reading the article. The author would make an excellent observation and then bury it with a few lines of text that came across like gloating. Pity. One could distract the reader and cause them to miss the point with that kind of behavior.
But the underlying premise is solid. It might sound archaic to our jaded readership... but how about a little truth in advertising?
Why are (most) forums spammed less than inboxes? You apparently don't run a forum that uses popular software. The little forum I run, on our own private domain, gets more spambots than our catch-all email configuration sees spam.
Of course, this could be argued as another piece of evidence against standardization. I have no doubt we get attention from spambots due to search results looking for the forum software we run. If I hid or otherwise obfuscated this information, we'd probably see less nefarious traffic. I could also do away with the "prove you know something about the subject of this forum" type question that has done wonders to foil spambots (although its also foiled legitimate users before as well).
But that doesn't mean the forum is superior. I still run email addresses on the domain because it remains a really useful tool. Email is powerful because of its standardization. We use it for internal communications and technical administration of the site. People can quickly and easily contact us via email without the additional overhead of forum accounts, etc. Usually the email we get comes from folks having trouble with their forum account.
The forum is a great tool. It serves its purpose well (although not the only way to do things by a long shot). But email serves it's place as well. I'd be really wary of throwing too many wrenches in to either system.
While this is true - I've yet to see any of the numerous questionable uses of the DMCA lead to charges of perjury. Have I missed something?They are issued under penalty of perjury. So if you just don't like the name because you think it violates your trademark, issuing a takedown notice is not a good idea.
I think there's a picture of the good Professor next the "ad hominem" in the dictionary. Or, at least, there will be on the Wikipedia soon.
Others have already pointed out that it wasn't Java but Solaris. It should be noted that this is exactly what the whole current case is about (or at the least, one of the points). Novell is claiming that SCOg had no right to provide Sun with a license that would allow them to Open Source SVRX code.
Having said that - the general concern is definitely a valid one. We've seen how the game is played these days. Lifting the restriction to a port of call means very little until we can be sure there's no submarines lurking below. The specification is an excellent first step. Now where's the license? That'll be the details where we have to look for the devil.
Yeah - but those stats are for Linux. I should have noted that the copy-and-paste I did was from Source Forge's download stats on the Pidgin project. Now - there's Linux and source code in there too. But I would suspect that a lot of those are people grabbing Windows installs.
The whole KDE vs Gnome debate is one of the things that keeps Windows on PCs.
Posted as AC because of Linux and OSS zealots. I'll agree so far as it falls in line with the original premise - developers should be listening to their intended users. However, it ends there.
Is this an example of OSS weakness? Hardly. This is actually a strength. If you think the "god complex" issue doesn't exist outside OSS, you've not been paying attention to the IT industry. The difference there is that if your vendor doesn't support your needs, you have to completely ditch the product and go to a competitor.
OSS is different only in that when a developer fails to deliver, the project gets forked. Ideas must survive on merit, not just because of buy-in from a final-say manager. If the fork really does do something people want, it flourishes. If not, it withers. Occasionally forked projects merge with the original. Sometimes two very distinctly different and strong ideas manage their own following. In all these scenarios, the end user ends up with more choices. Choice is good.
Does this process divide efforts? To some extent, yes. But that's the nature of the beast.
Two side comments...
KDE vs Gnome is a red herring. It doesn't matter. They are largely interchangeable. Anyone whos in a position to care can make that choice. It's hardly the show stopper critics make it out to be.
As for who uses Pidgin...
Date (UTC) Downloads Bytes Served
30 Apr 2008 10,656 134.0 GB
29 Apr 2008 16,017 200.6 GB
28 Apr 2008 15,919 199.9 GB
27 Apr 2008 10,635 132.6 GB
26 Apr 2008 10,844 135.6 GB
25 Apr 2008 14,537 181.8 GB
24 Apr 2008 15,455 193.8 GB
Total 94,063 1.1 TB
There's probably a few Windows install files in there.
The difference with Open Source and other groups of talented, opinionated, and driven technical groups is that with OSS the "discussions" are held in mostly public forums.
You forgot to add that the 'web has done nothing about getting those damn kids off your lawn.
I'm looking on the interwebs right now for an adopt-an-elephant program where I can name my elephant "Internet Elephant". I will then refer to him as both Internet and Elephant and note that the associated semantics population has more than trippled in the last few years.
I wouldn't dismiss zealotry outright. But not everything that touches Open Source involves it. I'd expect that pinning this sentiment entirely on OSS zealotry is a real stretch.
The OLPC issue is a complete red herring. Not only does it have nothing to do with this subject, you've really missed the discussion on OLPC (or are dismissing it outright).
One side thought - OS zealotry isn't limited to OSS. But that's another subject entirely.
Linux usablity discussions pop up fairly frequently. There are always folks who point out various flaws with various aspects of Linux. Amazingly, not all of them get tagged as trolls. The reason for that is an exercise for the reader. You'd do well to give it some thought. Unless, of course, you're a troll.
Of course, it wasn't that way the first time the test subject ran in to an issue of installing software. That time, she found herself at an install page for the application vendor with no Ubuntu package. Nothing she found lead her to clicky-clicky ease-of-install.
And this is the kicker. The install process is, in fact, "just as good" as Windows. But the companies involved have to do a decent job on their end. Windows is just as much lost when a vendor doesn't provide the clicky-clicky easy package.
Does that mean a vendor should publish packages for all the major (if not every) Linux distro? It would be nice - its always a pleasure to see your favorite distro as a download option. But it's not necessary. I like the default tarball option. But that's because I know what to do with it. The clicky-clicky Windows-trained end user doesn't. But there are clicky-clicky install packaging techniques that aren't particularly distro-specific.
Others have also already pointed out that Ubuntu comes with a really nice package system (thanks Debian!) that draws from a large repository of pre-packaged software. An experienced Ubuntu user would have known to check here first. And that's the other issue. Linux does things differently - does that mean it's wrong?
I'm a big fan of tests like this. They uncover things we don't expect and could learn from. The trick is to realize what are things that are just broke, what are things that need to be tweaked, and what are simply different.
OK. That's not fair.
Unless that screenplay was used for the basis of a video game which in turn was the basis for a Uwe Boll movie.