The "trusted" boot functions provide the ability to store in Platform Configuration Registers (PCR), hashes of configuration information throughout the boot sequence. Once booted, data (such as symmetric keys for encrypted files) can be "sealed" under a PCR. The sealed data can only be unsealed if the PCR has the same value as at the time of sealing. Thus, if an attempt is made to boot an alternative system, or a virus has backdoored the operating system, the PCR value will not match, and the unseal will fail, thus protecting the data.
At the very least, that sounds like "bye-bye multi-boot systems".
IBM also has a rebuttal to TCPA's detractors [PDF]. This one talks more about how the TCPA chip as currently designed"not been designed to resist local hardware attack, such as power analysis, RF analysis, or timing analysis." That's all well and good for the moment, and while the chip is (per the PDF) mounted on a presumably-removeable daughterboard, but how about the future? Is this how TCPA will stay, or is it the beginning of our worst fears??
At least these two whitepapers agree with most of us here on one thing -- DRM itself is stupid, for a variety of reasons.
Also, I've noticed in the past that non-viral spam spikes come a few months after the introduction of some new spamming software, as judged by changes in the headers, the types of content nd/or attachments, etc. At a guess, there've been a couple "new and different" types over the past year, which probably helped grow the average.
CAN-SPAM may have "legalized" spam, but also made it easy to filter *compliant* spammers, so I expect the net effect of the law was zero.
That sort of ease of use is exactly what I'm talking about. The average user should NOT need to know anything beyond "click setup on the CD" or "doubleclick the file in Konquerer, and follow the prompts".
Frex, I have concurrent versions of WordPerfect for both Win32 and linux. The Win32 version took about four brain cells to install, and was smart enough to set up its own icons in logical places. Any idiot could do it, on any random Win32 system. The linux version... well, I never did get it to install, on any of several distros I tried. Konq didn't seem to think there was anything runnable on the CD, nor did manually rooting around reveal any likely prospects. A script someone sent me didn't work either.
A common thread among folk who believe linux is "usable" as is, is that they don't actually USE it for anything other than ubergeek type pursuits (programming, server stuff, etc.) Damn few are doing office-type work, serious graphics editing, or other non-ubergeek tasks. Most seem to believe that stuff like which mouse button you can use for something is a defining trait of an advanced desktop. Speaks to me of a glaring lack of realworld experience.
I've found that most users don't really give a flip about such stuff. What they DO want is consistency, and NOT being randomly confronted with stuff that's either inconsistent, or out of the normal range of their everyday experience with that desktop.
Thirty bucks and NO activation -- hell, even the previous $50 or so -- and I agree, it would be far less worthwhile to pirate Windows. Even if that $30 copy came with NO tech support other than access to patches, that would be acceptable for most home users. Yeah, so some people would install it on multiple home machines. Those aren't M$'s main cash customers anyway (their real market is enterprise business), so what's the big deal?
BTW I find it significant that M$'s stock went flat concurrent with doubling the price of Windows (and the addition of activation), and has not recovered.
I noticed early on that WinXP seemed to be designed around Dell hardware. It has also occurred to me that some of the activation points are designed to help "encourage" complete hardware replacement, rather than upgrades or DIY boxes. Draw your own conclusions...
Probably because Apple already HAD a mature user environment. Apple already KNEW what they wanted the GUI to look like, how they wanted the OS to interact with the user, and what they wanted the overall user experience to feel like. And Apple is in a position to dictate from on high that the Mac WILL look and behave thusly, whether developers like it or not.
*NIX hasn't made up its mind about any of that, nor is there an enforced standard dictating the user environment. But worse, *NIX suffers from too many mindsets like "if it was hard for me to learn, it should be hard for YOU too" or even worse, "it's not hard, you're just stupid".
But that's the sort of thing the parent poster was talking about. Yeah, we can rearrange all the widgets in KDE (the only linux desktop I find even remotely usable -- I like Mandrake with KDE well enough to fervently wish for it to reach the point where I *can* switch my clients to it). Yeah, we can make it look any way we want. But that's still eye candy: Appearance. FORM, not FUNCTION. Linux's FUNCTIONALITY tends to be either hidden from the average user (who isn't going to go textfile diving), or inconsistent enough that you *have* to be constantly aware of a plethora of little quirks.
It will be as USABLE as Windows when every program behaves consistently (particularly such simple things as copy and paste); when I can install any reasonably concurrent software (and a lot of old software) without worrying about dependencies or version madness; when appropriate drivers come with new hardware and don't require a lengthy bout in a forum before I discover that my new gadget simply won't work; when configuration tools are *enhanced* (NOT "dumbed down") by making them equally accessable via GUI or text editor. (Tho Mandrake does take a fair stab at this.)
And yes, I know there are apps and managers available to address such issues. But the real point is that I shouldn't NEED to know about these workarounds and fixes. I should be able to just throw the OS and software at any tolerably standard hardware, only needing to know enough to put the install CDs in the drawer, and everything should Just Work (which contrary to local belief, normally IS the case with Windows; indeed, "It Just Works" is the basic Mac mantra).
BTW as to Windows' Start Menu, it's nothing more than a series of subdirectories and.LNK files, which you can rename and reorganize any way you wish; even major changes are the work of a few seconds. I happen to prefer doing it in Explorer, but you can do it within the Start Menu itself if you wish. (Hint: any file or directory *in* the "Start Menu" folder goes above the divider line in the Start Menu itself.)
I don't use Firefox itself, but Mozilla 1.0 leaked resources like nothing else I've ever seen, and had the dubious honour of being the ONLY application to *ever* BSOD my good old Win95 box.
I've noticed that Moz-anyversion leaks resources (at least on Win9*) when it's viewing my local disk. This reminds me forcefully of the core Mosaic bug that's evidently in all NS and IE versions to some degree, most often manifested as a resource leak when viewing a page with many elements (links, checkboxes, etc) inside table cells. Anyway, I wonder if this might manifest in Moz on XP as excessive memory use (as you're seeing).
I've reported it, but was told I was full of shit and that no such issues exist. [shrug]
I just tried K-Meleon v.Today; it lacks some config stuff and various features, and the layers thing would take getting used to... but it renders at least 10x faster than Firefox or Mozilla (notably wrt table structures), and KM also multitasks smoothly, whereas Moz does not. (Which is probably not visible on a fast machine, but is painfully evident on this poor old P3-550. Moz does one task at a time, grinds to completion, and only then does it get to the next task. This makes me want to hurt someone...)
I still salvage anything from a P100 on up, that being about the bottom end for real usefulness at this point (finally got to where I turn up my nose at a 486:) Yeah, they won't run XP, but they can be firewalls, luggables, file servers, word processing and websurfing boxes, etc. (I did once accidentally discover that Win2K *will* run, usably enough for basic functions, on a lowly 486DX4-100 with a mere 8mb RAM! Ooops, next time we will LABEL the loose HDs.:)
I have XPPro on a P3-500/768mb RAM, and it's quite good -- not crisp, but never laggy either, and I expect it to do Real Work. One of my clients has XPPro on a P3-450/512mb, and it actually outperforms mine. (Tho XP Home on my neighbours Celeron 2.5GHz/256mb, running less systray stuff, is a pig by comparison to either.) Anyway, I'd put the real sysreqs for XPPro and office/web type apps at P2-300/256mb RAM -- and as you say, tons of just such perfectly useful machines sadly go to the dump.:(
Of course, people who can't afford to buy a $300 eMachine aren't going to be able to afford XPPro either (given that Home is just too slow for older hardware), so I'm not sure that factor is even relevant. Win98 would be more to the point.
Finally, someone who agrees with me that recentish KDE is a bit much for an otherwise-nice old P2! I like KDE, but even so... I have Mandrake 7.2 on a P3-450/256mb, and while it's usable enough, it's definitely sluggish compared to XP on the similar hardware sitting right next to it. (But it could be worse... Gnome barely crawled along.)
I still have a 100%-perfect-working XT that I can't bear to dumpster, and the good old 286 that I "grew up on"... it'd be like executing your own child just because he's retarded:)
Yes, it does, dead in its tracks. However the test page I used was Slashdot, which isn't endowed with browser-grabbing components, either.
My own trick for jerking control back from an ill-mannered page that refuses to "stop loading" via the Stop button, is to set the browser's Home Page to somewhere on my local disk (or about:blank, but a local file is more of a sure thing), then I use the Home button as an emergency stop/escape hatch.
Several folks have said that, and true, it's likely to attract the same folks who would switch to Firefox. But -- isn't anything that gets people to try some browser OTHER than IE a good thing, whether it's Moz, Firefox, K-Meleon, Opera, Off-by-One, or whatever??
You mean 98lite, from litepc.com I think. There are trial versions available, including one for XP. -- I've only used it on my WinME box, in the default "uncouple IE from the desktop" mode, but between that and turning off WinME's worthless System Restore function (and learning to never use the New Compiled-HTML Help**), that WinME box has not crashed since -- not once in over four YEARS. However, in default mode it apparently did NOT uncouple IE's renderer from the New Help engine, as that DOES still make it unstable (hence I've learned to simply avoid using it).
So.. pointing Windows at a different HTML rendering engine does seem like an excellent concept, yep!
Speaking of Konq, did anything ever happen with that Konq for Win32 project?
I *like* Konq, largely because out of all the "other" browsers, it's the most operationally similar to my to-this-day *preferred* browser, Netscape 3.04. As you note, not only for being orders of magnitude faster than Moz/FF, but also because of Konq's behaviour wrt context menus and multitasking, usefulness as a local file browser, config options, appearance options, and internal integration (how the mail client behaves, etc). And I flat couldn't use a linux desktop without it.:)
I still support one user who has a 486, and being disabled, he can't afford better (and the 486 was free). I have another disabled user in a similar situation, who just lately graudated from a 486 to a P60 (also a freebie). But these machines still do all they really need -- SO LONG AS THERE ARE STILL OPTIONS AVAILABLE that don't overload their hardware. If the entire online world required Mozilla, they'd be left out in the cold. Along with anyone else whose personal situation doesn't allow current hardware.
Is it Firefox itself that won't run on Win95, or just its *installer* ??
Cuz Moz itself runs on Win95 (well, I had good luck with v0.99, but v1.0 was the ONLY app to *ever* BSOD that box), and I wouldn't think Firefox would be *that* different.
Anyway... see above where I mutter about a few plus and minuses, but per my first look, KM's big plus is speed. (If you think Moz and Firefox are fast, try 'em on a poor old P3-500 with a paltry gig of RAM.)
Goaded by your comment [g] I finally got around to installing K-Meleon... I did instantly see something that I think ought to be changed: apparently the default is to ALLOW sites to change browser settings. Also, there doesn't seem to be any way to get it to accept my system colours. And various other little annoyances (inability to block ads?), interspersed with some good features.
But K-Meleon certainly renders faster than Firefox or Mozilla (KM is RADICALLY faster at complex tables), and per my first test, KM can actually multitask, which Mozilla does not. (If you think it does, try it on a slower system and watch how it hangs up on each task until it's done, THEN goes on to the next task.) It also handles local-disk browsing MUCH better than Moz.
I think KM may be about to replace Moz for some of the more-annoying sites that I *have* to use.
Wow, thanks for the history. Yes, that all fits with what little I knew about it. Is French your first language?
People in America, where everyone speaks reasonably similar English (at least sufficiently alike to understand one another), tend to forget that every region in Europe (and in some areas, every village) developed its own distinct dialect, often quite different from its own mother tongue. That's a natural side effect of a society that doesn't travel much. Whereas in America, right from the beinning people traveled long distances and our society became mixed rather than villaged (so to speak). Hence we have several regional accents, but very few true regional dialects.
I'm sure it depends (as the original post implied) on where you learned it, too. Montreal French probably doesn't much resemble the French spoken in the far reaches of northern Quebec.
One of your responses makes the point that if everything was designed to perfection, everything would cost the same fortune that aircraft-related stuff does.
Well, my response is.. not necessarily.
It's okay if stuff fails sometimes -- so long as it fails *gracefully*.
When an aircraft's engine shuts down unexpectedly, it doesn't just fall from the sky and go SPLAT. The pilot has a reasonable chance to set down intact, or restart the engine while still gliding, or if all else fails, eject and use a parachute. Whichever way the flight abends, the most critical data (the pilot and passengers) should not be lost.
Likewise, it's okay if a program abends, so long as it does so in a reasonable fashion. Frex, I use an HTML editor that crashes with some frequency, but it NEVER takes Windows with it, and at worst it only loses the last 30 seconds of your work. Because it preserves my data regardless and doesn't screw up anything else, the fact that it crashes occasionally is not the end of the world.
The equivalent would be an aircraft that occasionally experiences engine failure in flight, but where the engine NEVER fails to restart, and in the meantime, the aircraft NEVER hits the ground. Worst thing that ever happens is that you might have to circle the field once more before coming in for a landing.
So -- design the failsafes and abend procedures in from the beginning. Get those right, so that data (pilots, passengers, whatever) is never lost no matter what "shit happens". Then get rid of the lesser flaws. We don't care so much if the plane is temporarily painted ugly colours or makes funny noises (but not deafening noises!!) if we know it always reaches its destination intact.
Yeah, there are limits as to how much you can protect against Stupid User Tricks (bad data, bomb on board) but ideally, blowing a big hole in the cargo hold still shouldn't crash the plane.
[hears creaking noise, decides analogy is about to abend]
Slashdot Mirror
The "trusted" boot functions provide the ability to store in Platform Configuration Registers (PCR), hashes of configuration information throughout the boot sequence. Once booted, data (such as symmetric keys for encrypted files) can be "sealed" under a PCR. The sealed data can only be unsealed if the PCR has the same value as at the time of sealing. Thus, if an attempt is made to boot an alternative system, or a virus has backdoored the operating system, the PCR value will not match, and the unseal will fail, thus protecting the data.
At the very least, that sounds like "bye-bye multi-boot systems".
IBM also has a rebuttal to TCPA's detractors [PDF]. This one talks more about how the TCPA chip as currently designed "not been designed to resist local hardware attack, such as power analysis, RF analysis, or timing analysis." That's all well and good for the moment, and while the chip is (per the PDF) mounted on a presumably-removeable daughterboard, but how about the future? Is this how TCPA will stay, or is it the beginning of our worst fears??
At least these two whitepapers agree with most of us here on one thing -- DRM itself is stupid, for a variety of reasons.
Lad, I dinnae where ye been, but I see that thanks to herbal viagra, ye've won first prize!
Also, I've noticed in the past that non-viral spam spikes come a few months after the introduction of some new spamming software, as judged by changes in the headers, the types of content nd/or attachments, etc. At a guess, there've been a couple "new and different" types over the past year, which probably helped grow the average.
CAN-SPAM may have "legalized" spam, but also made it easy to filter *compliant* spammers, so I expect the net effect of the law was zero.
That sort of ease of use is exactly what I'm talking about. The average user should NOT need to know anything beyond "click setup on the CD" or "doubleclick the file in Konquerer, and follow the prompts".
Frex, I have concurrent versions of WordPerfect for both Win32 and linux. The Win32 version took about four brain cells to install, and was smart enough to set up its own icons in logical places. Any idiot could do it, on any random Win32 system. The linux version... well, I never did get it to install, on any of several distros I tried. Konq didn't seem to think there was anything runnable on the CD, nor did manually rooting around reveal any likely prospects. A script someone sent me didn't work either.
A common thread among folk who believe linux is "usable" as is, is that they don't actually USE it for anything other than ubergeek type pursuits (programming, server stuff, etc.) Damn few are doing office-type work, serious graphics editing, or other non-ubergeek tasks. Most seem to believe that stuff like which mouse button you can use for something is a defining trait of an advanced desktop. Speaks to me of a glaring lack of realworld experience.
I've found that most users don't really give a flip about such stuff. What they DO want is consistency, and NOT being randomly confronted with stuff that's either inconsistent, or out of the normal range of their everyday experience with that desktop.
Thirty bucks and NO activation -- hell, even the previous $50 or so -- and I agree, it would be far less worthwhile to pirate Windows. Even if that $30 copy came with NO tech support other than access to patches, that would be acceptable for most home users. Yeah, so some people would install it on multiple home machines. Those aren't M$'s main cash customers anyway (their real market is enterprise business), so what's the big deal?
BTW I find it significant that M$'s stock went flat concurrent with doubling the price of Windows (and the addition of activation), and has not recovered.
I noticed early on that WinXP seemed to be designed around Dell hardware. It has also occurred to me that some of the activation points are designed to help "encourage" complete hardware replacement, rather than upgrades or DIY boxes. Draw your own conclusions...
Probably because Apple already HAD a mature user environment. Apple already KNEW what they wanted the GUI to look like, how they wanted the OS to interact with the user, and what they wanted the overall user experience to feel like. And Apple is in a position to dictate from on high that the Mac WILL look and behave thusly, whether developers like it or not.
*NIX hasn't made up its mind about any of that, nor is there an enforced standard dictating the user environment. But worse, *NIX suffers from too many mindsets like "if it was hard for me to learn, it should be hard for YOU too" or even worse, "it's not hard, you're just stupid".
I just read an editorial suggesting that M$ should opensource NT4 http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,175 3592,00.asp and perhaps even opensource last spring's leaked source http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,152 7013,00.asp
Thoughts, anyone??
But that's the sort of thing the parent poster was talking about. Yeah, we can rearrange all the widgets in KDE (the only linux desktop I find even remotely usable -- I like Mandrake with KDE well enough to fervently wish for it to reach the point where I *can* switch my clients to it). Yeah, we can make it look any way we want. But that's still eye candy: Appearance. FORM, not FUNCTION. Linux's FUNCTIONALITY tends to be either hidden from the average user (who isn't going to go textfile diving), or inconsistent enough that you *have* to be constantly aware of a plethora of little quirks.
.LNK files, which you can rename and reorganize any way you wish; even major changes are the work of a few seconds. I happen to prefer doing it in Explorer, but you can do it within the Start Menu itself if you wish. (Hint: any file or directory *in* the "Start Menu" folder goes above the divider line in the Start Menu itself.)
It will be as USABLE as Windows when every program behaves consistently (particularly such simple things as copy and paste); when I can install any reasonably concurrent software (and a lot of old software) without worrying about dependencies or version madness; when appropriate drivers come with new hardware and don't require a lengthy bout in a forum before I discover that my new gadget simply won't work; when configuration tools are *enhanced* (NOT "dumbed down") by making them equally accessable via GUI or text editor. (Tho Mandrake does take a fair stab at this.)
And yes, I know there are apps and managers available to address such issues. But the real point is that I shouldn't NEED to know about these workarounds and fixes. I should be able to just throw the OS and software at any tolerably standard hardware, only needing to know enough to put the install CDs in the drawer, and everything should Just Work (which contrary to local belief, normally IS the case with Windows; indeed, "It Just Works" is the basic Mac mantra).
BTW as to Windows' Start Menu, it's nothing more than a series of subdirectories and
I know AOL used to have an email-only service for about $10/month; is that still available?
Tee hee... yep, tho such a creature did exist, I somehow managed to avoid being afflicted with one :)
I don't use Firefox itself, but Mozilla 1.0 leaked resources like nothing else I've ever seen, and had the dubious honour of being the ONLY application to *ever* BSOD my good old Win95 box.
I've noticed that Moz-anyversion leaks resources (at least on Win9*) when it's viewing my local disk. This reminds me forcefully of the core Mosaic bug that's evidently in all NS and IE versions to some degree, most often manifested as a resource leak when viewing a page with many elements (links, checkboxes, etc) inside table cells. Anyway, I wonder if this might manifest in Moz on XP as excessive memory use (as you're seeing).
I've reported it, but was told I was full of shit and that no such issues exist. [shrug]
I just tried K-Meleon v.Today; it lacks some config stuff and various features, and the layers thing would take getting used to... but it renders at least 10x faster than Firefox or Mozilla (notably wrt table structures), and KM also multitasks smoothly, whereas Moz does not. (Which is probably not visible on a fast machine, but is painfully evident on this poor old P3-550. Moz does one task at a time, grinds to completion, and only then does it get to the next task. This makes me want to hurt someone...)
I still salvage anything from a P100 on up, that being about the bottom end for real usefulness at this point (finally got to where I turn up my nose at a 486 :) Yeah, they won't run XP, but they can be firewalls, luggables, file servers, word processing and websurfing boxes, etc. (I did once accidentally discover that Win2K *will* run, usably enough for basic functions, on a lowly 486DX4-100 with a mere 8mb RAM! Ooops, next time we will LABEL the loose HDs. :)
:(
:)
I have XPPro on a P3-500/768mb RAM, and it's quite good -- not crisp, but never laggy either, and I expect it to do Real Work. One of my clients has XPPro on a P3-450/512mb, and it actually outperforms mine. (Tho XP Home on my neighbours Celeron 2.5GHz/256mb, running less systray stuff, is a pig by comparison to either.) Anyway, I'd put the real sysreqs for XPPro and office/web type apps at P2-300/256mb RAM -- and as you say, tons of just such perfectly useful machines sadly go to the dump.
Of course, people who can't afford to buy a $300 eMachine aren't going to be able to afford XPPro either (given that Home is just too slow for older hardware), so I'm not sure that factor is even relevant. Win98 would be more to the point.
Finally, someone who agrees with me that recentish KDE is a bit much for an otherwise-nice old P2! I like KDE, but even so... I have Mandrake 7.2 on a P3-450/256mb, and while it's usable enough, it's definitely sluggish compared to XP on the similar hardware sitting right next to it. (But it could be worse... Gnome barely crawled along.)
I still have a 100%-perfect-working XT that I can't bear to dumpster, and the good old 286 that I "grew up on"... it'd be like executing your own child just because he's retarded
[goes off, tests it]
Yes, it does, dead in its tracks. However the test page I used was Slashdot, which isn't endowed with browser-grabbing components, either.
My own trick for jerking control back from an ill-mannered page that refuses to "stop loading" via the Stop button, is to set the browser's Home Page to somewhere on my local disk (or about:blank, but a local file is more of a sure thing), then I use the Home button as an emergency stop/escape hatch.
Several folks have said that, and true, it's likely to attract the same folks who would switch to Firefox. But -- isn't anything that gets people to try some browser OTHER than IE a good thing, whether it's Moz, Firefox, K-Meleon, Opera, Off-by-One, or whatever??
You mean 98lite, from litepc.com I think. There are trial versions available, including one for XP. -- I've only used it on my WinME box, in the default "uncouple IE from the desktop" mode, but between that and turning off WinME's worthless System Restore function (and learning to never use the New Compiled-HTML Help**), that WinME box has not crashed since -- not once in over four YEARS. However, in default mode it apparently did NOT uncouple IE's renderer from the New Help engine, as that DOES still make it unstable (hence I've learned to simply avoid using it).
So.. pointing Windows at a different HTML rendering engine does seem like an excellent concept, yep!
Speaking of Konq, did anything ever happen with that Konq for Win32 project?
:)
I *like* Konq, largely because out of all the "other" browsers, it's the most operationally similar to my to-this-day *preferred* browser, Netscape 3.04. As you note, not only for being orders of magnitude faster than Moz/FF, but also because of Konq's behaviour wrt context menus and multitasking, usefulness as a local file browser, config options, appearance options, and internal integration (how the mail client behaves, etc). And I flat couldn't use a linux desktop without it.
Hear hear!!
I still support one user who has a 486, and being disabled, he can't afford better (and the 486 was free). I have another disabled user in a similar situation, who just lately graudated from a 486 to a P60 (also a freebie). But these machines still do all they really need -- SO LONG AS THERE ARE STILL OPTIONS AVAILABLE that don't overload their hardware. If the entire online world required Mozilla, they'd be left out in the cold. Along with anyone else whose personal situation doesn't allow current hardware.
Geekier? Updating software on your VAX. :)
Is it Firefox itself that won't run on Win95, or just its *installer* ??
Cuz Moz itself runs on Win95 (well, I had good luck with v0.99, but v1.0 was the ONLY app to *ever* BSOD that box), and I wouldn't think Firefox would be *that* different.
Anyway... see above where I mutter about a few plus and minuses, but per my first look, KM's big plus is speed. (If you think Moz and Firefox are fast, try 'em on a poor old P3-500 with a paltry gig of RAM.)
Goaded by your comment [g] I finally got around to installing K-Meleon... I did instantly see something that I think ought to be changed: apparently the default is to ALLOW sites to change browser settings. Also, there doesn't seem to be any way to get it to accept my system colours. And various other little annoyances (inability to block ads?), interspersed with some good features.
But K-Meleon certainly renders faster than Firefox or Mozilla (KM is RADICALLY faster at complex tables), and per my first test, KM can actually multitask, which Mozilla does not. (If you think it does, try it on a slower system and watch how it hangs up on each task until it's done, THEN goes on to the next task.) It also handles local-disk browsing MUCH better than Moz.
I think KM may be about to replace Moz for some of the more-annoying sites that I *have* to use.
Learn more about paranoids -- follow them around.
Ah, okay, thanks for the explanation. From TFA, all I got was that they "waited and waited, and nothing happened".
:)
I gather these expeditions aren't big on multitasking
Wow, thanks for the history. Yes, that all fits with what little I knew about it. Is French your first language?
People in America, where everyone speaks reasonably similar English (at least sufficiently alike to understand one another), tend to forget that every region in Europe (and in some areas, every village) developed its own distinct dialect, often quite different from its own mother tongue. That's a natural side effect of a society that doesn't travel much. Whereas in America, right from the beinning people traveled long distances and our society became mixed rather than villaged (so to speak). Hence we have several regional accents, but very few true regional dialects.
I'm sure it depends (as the original post implied) on where you learned it, too. Montreal French probably doesn't much resemble the French spoken in the far reaches of northern Quebec.
One of your responses makes the point that if everything was designed to perfection, everything would cost the same fortune that aircraft-related stuff does.
.. not necessarily.
Well, my response is
It's okay if stuff fails sometimes -- so long as it fails *gracefully*.
When an aircraft's engine shuts down unexpectedly, it doesn't just fall from the sky and go SPLAT. The pilot has a reasonable chance to set down intact, or restart the engine while still gliding, or if all else fails, eject and use a parachute. Whichever way the flight abends, the most critical data (the pilot and passengers) should not be lost.
Likewise, it's okay if a program abends, so long as it does so in a reasonable fashion. Frex, I use an HTML editor that crashes with some frequency, but it NEVER takes Windows with it, and at worst it only loses the last 30 seconds of your work. Because it preserves my data regardless and doesn't screw up anything else, the fact that it crashes occasionally is not the end of the world.
The equivalent would be an aircraft that occasionally experiences engine failure in flight, but where the engine NEVER fails to restart, and in the meantime, the aircraft NEVER hits the ground. Worst thing that ever happens is that you might have to circle the field once more before coming in for a landing.
So -- design the failsafes and abend procedures in from the beginning. Get those right, so that data (pilots, passengers, whatever) is never lost no matter what "shit happens". Then get rid of the lesser flaws. We don't care so much if the plane is temporarily painted ugly colours or makes funny noises (but not deafening noises!!) if we know it always reaches its destination intact.
Yeah, there are limits as to how much you can protect against Stupid User Tricks (bad data, bomb on board) but ideally, blowing a big hole in the cargo hold still shouldn't crash the plane.
[hears creaking noise, decides analogy is about to abend]