The problems that come up will be "sins of omission". In order to avoid breaking a generalized interface, plugin makers may not create an interface the way that makes the most sense for a certain language.
Eg: has anyone used Visual Basic? The interface is built around what the language is good at (and the interface is a main reason for its popularity). While the same functionality could have come via a plugin, likely it wouldn't have. Instead, a tool like the form editor would be bundled with the other resources, rather than front and center in coding. This makes coding other types of projects awkward, but they aren't VB's strengths anyway...
In short, I think there are advantages to building a UI solely around a specific language.
You're correct, the browser is also very important. For the most part, though, a business could get along with another browser - internal web content might have to be redesigned, but typically business-important external websites are viewable from a browser like Opera.
The requirement of buying office doesn't negate the potential price difference between Windows and Lindows (I don't know what actual prices are going to be - Lindows would have to be significantly cheaper to buy it merely as a replacement).
You may believe that StarOffice is an easy-swap kind of replacement for Office. I hear that now and again, but not usually from people who run large, document-centric businesses.
That said, I'm no expert on StarOffice. I do know, though, that there are many businesses - including us - that would be interested in a cheaper OS that was compatible with Windows apps, especially Office.
Also, remember that all users are not you. Many users by collectable plates. I know many that like Clippy.
A: Run Word well
B: Cost significantly less than Windows
we'd use it. Obviously if it "works half as well" then it will be pointless, but that's not something we can assume right now.
How can you say they're "wasting their time" when you have no idea how good/not good the finished product will be? If these screenshots are honest, I say they could have something significant. If it runs Windows apps well (and it's cheaper or faster or whatever), it could well be the right tool for that job.
Not that I expect it to... but who knows? Not you.
OOP isn't going to help you solve your math problems, for the most part. If you're dealing with a lot of objects, it could clarify things. For example, if you had physical objects with a list of properties like dimensions, temperatures, etc... you have a few options.
You could have parallel arrays, like
double nObjectX[100] (array to be clear)
double nObjectSpecificHeat[100]
...
This would certainly work, and you could write functions to work with data as it is here.
But if you thought of all of these as properties of one object, (ie Object.X, Object.SpecificHeat), you could:
- pass them to your functions more easily
- make your code more clear
- impress your programming friends
It could be that none of the above will help you at all. There is, by definition of how computers work, nothing that you can do with OOP that you can't do without it. And lots of time it's more effort for the same product.
My point is simply this: why expect Hollywood to be good at two things?
I think it's in their best interests to stay out of the story writing business - they fail too often. Movies should be kind of like Reader's Digest - publishing the best of books as film.
I'm afraid I never had the requisite attention span to catch AB's little faux pas - most of us 7 year olds were mainly watching to see if he'd use his butt laser again.
Good special effects is not a problem. Pixels are not a problem either. If you think there's tons of bad movies coming out right now, look back through the years.
I used a RC car, and put a X10 camera on it. I wired the car's remote control to the parallel port, and fed the video in - so I could wander around the office with it on my screen, controlled via keyboard.
Pretty fun. The range on the remote wasn't amazing though - could fix that by going to a better car.
If you need a university course to learn logic, you're not much of a programmer. I took a fair bit of logic - but only because as a programmer it was trivially easy. Other students weren't used to thinking logically, assigning meaning to cryptic symbols and such.
Logic is very easy when you're used to breaking things down recursively and relying on process. Anyone who can computer program has to be at least middle of the pack in terms of thinking of things logically. Philosophy is just logic without good proofs.
As to language skills I agree - I've known a few programmers who could benefit from freshman English.
Some old email programs attach forwarded messages and replies as.EML's (including some of our clients, who forward us jobs to do that mean money). So while it would be a good idea to block them, we (and a lot of places, I'd imagine) don't.
These mail viruses have all been evolutionary steps. The big one will run straight from the preview pane, will send e-mails with no real signature, and will mimic other emails sent by that user.
As a simpler step, these viruses should be hiding themselves within attached.EML files. That would get around the filters many companies have set up.
Security is better with multiple servers, simply because there are some exploits that require multiple services on the same machine. I'm not sure why you think multiple OS/hardware setups will make things more secure. There's plenty of ISP's that had one Solaris install, and that was the machine that got broken by sadmind exploits a year ago. That doesn't mean the Solaris box was less secure than the NT machines in the rest of their building - it means that sys admin time/knowledge was focused on another architecture and this left a hole.
Security isn't necessarily going to be worse when you add a mix of systems. Security may get better, if you add a more secure box in place of a less secure one - and you have the resources to administer all the types of systems you have.
However, because it's harder to administer, there's good odds it will be less secure in the end.
We've made a business of working almost exclusively with insurance companies. Because we know the industry we talk to them about things they actually want. We understand what they ask for. We deliver quickly.
Also, nobody is going to beat down any bushes to find you. And your business better look like a real business, not "some guy". Get stationary. Have a real office. Ignore this advice at your absolute peril.
And you want fairly large projects. Little projects take almost as much work, and don't pay anything.
Was his fear based on Linux, or on the simple desire to limit the diversity of machines on the network. Security is easier to administrate when you limit yourself to a certain selection of OS's and products. He may even understand that Linux is typically very secure.
I know my company often denies requests like this not out of fear of something, but of fear of _another_ something.
I've had Word documents that were hundreds of pages. I've worked in Word for years. I have _never_ lost a document - although several times I've had to go back to the convenient backup file because of a power outage. There's my anecdote, and it bears just as much weight as yours.
Are these bugs repeatable, demonstrable behavior? I'll bet they aren't. Do you have statistics, or are you just going to point me to more anecdotes?
I'm sorry that you had problems with Word - but actual testing, benchmarking, and the experiences of millions of users fail to suggest that this is common Word behavior.
They should make a distribution that's set up to mimic some default Windows behavior - eg: you can change the screen resolution by right clicking on the desktop, you can close windows by hitting Alt-F4.
There's a lot of things to complain about with MS, but Office is certainly not CRAP.
You're right, one day people will use something else. And that will be right around the time that MS can no longer differentiate its product from free competitors.
There are costs and benefits to a lot of different software options right now. To deny that Office offers any benefits is ignorant. If you talk to people developing competing products, I'm sure they'll tell you the respect they have for Office - and how much work it is to create such a huge, feature-rich product.
And somehow, millions of people every day manage to somehow produce documents on it. I personally don't like parts of Word, but I respect that it has been built to satisfy a broad spectrum of users, and for the most part does so.
Any OS should be happy to have an app set as strong as Office.
-
While MS has it's problems, I think trouble shooting is fairly easy in general. Problems with randomly corrupted DLL's are fairly rare in my experience (in a company with 300 users). Usually problems with DLL's happen after installs/uninstalls of poorly written software, and it's fairly easy to diagnose problems.
In the rare cases where critical DLL's have been lost or damaged, it's trivial to do a repair install. I did one on my own machine (after cable guy installed some crap) about a month ago. Didn't lose anything except my browser settings (as it reverted to IE 5.0).
I hear a lot of complaints about Windows DLL hell, but I'm not sure where it is - perhaps it's in the '95 series OS's. Windows 2000 just seems to work.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems that come up will be "sins of omission". In order to avoid breaking a generalized interface, plugin makers may not create an interface the way that makes the most sense for a certain language.
Eg: has anyone used Visual Basic? The interface is built around what the language is good at (and the interface is a main reason for its popularity). While the same functionality could have come via a plugin, likely it wouldn't have. Instead, a tool like the form editor would be bundled with the other resources, rather than front and center in coding. This makes coding other types of projects awkward, but they aren't VB's strengths anyway...
In short, I think there are advantages to building a UI solely around a specific language.
You're correct, the browser is also very important. For the most part, though, a business could get along with another browser - internal web content might have to be redesigned, but typically business-important external websites are viewable from a browser like Opera.
OK, I can't make it any simpler.
The requirement of buying office doesn't negate the potential price difference between Windows and Lindows (I don't know what actual prices are going to be - Lindows would have to be significantly cheaper to buy it merely as a replacement).
You may believe that StarOffice is an easy-swap kind of replacement for Office. I hear that now and again, but not usually from people who run large, document-centric businesses.
That said, I'm no expert on StarOffice. I do know, though, that there are many businesses - including us - that would be interested in a cheaper OS that was compatible with Windows apps, especially Office.
Also, remember that all users are not you. Many users by collectable plates. I know many that like Clippy.
If this product will
A: Run Word well
B: Cost significantly less than Windows
we'd use it. Obviously if it "works half as well" then it will be pointless, but that's not something we can assume right now.
How can you say they're "wasting their time" when you have no idea how good/not good the finished product will be? If these screenshots are honest, I say they could have something significant. If it runs Windows apps well (and it's cheaper or faster or whatever), it could well be the right tool for that job.
Not that I expect it to... but who knows? Not you.
.
A cheap replacement for Windows would be great for us - could use it on tons of our secretarial machines if it really does run Word.
The problem is not that it wouldn't be great - the problem is that I'll bet it won't actually run Word.
And if you put in all 0's, Lisp is the best. Apparently it's good for those who don't want anything to do with programming.
Also, there is a combination of settings that will mean Visual Basic wins, although Python and C are the only ones that are "best in their category".
OOP isn't going to help you solve your math problems, for the most part. If you're dealing with a lot of objects, it could clarify things. For example, if you had physical objects with a list of properties like dimensions, temperatures, etc... you have a few options.
You could have parallel arrays, like
double nObjectX[100] (array to be clear)
double nObjectSpecificHeat[100]
...
This would certainly work, and you could write functions to work with data as it is here.
But if you thought of all of these as properties of one object, (ie Object.X, Object.SpecificHeat), you could:
- pass them to your functions more easily
- make your code more clear
- impress your programming friends
It could be that none of the above will help you at all. There is, by definition of how computers work, nothing that you can do with OOP that you can't do without it. And lots of time it's more effort for the same product.
.
My point is simply this: why expect Hollywood to be good at two things?
I think it's in their best interests to stay out of the story writing business - they fail too often. Movies should be kind of like Reader's Digest - publishing the best of books as film.
I wish I had some mod points for you.
I'm afraid I never had the requisite attention span to catch AB's little faux pas - most of us 7 year olds were mainly watching to see if he'd use his butt laser again.
.
Parents? Teachers? Friends? Robert Downey Jr.?
Sports heroes? Musicians? Fictional characters? Religious figures? Callista Flockhart?
Ok, I'll give you Jimmy Stewart...
CG==OBL
-
Good special effects is not a problem. Pixels are not a problem either. If you think there's tons of bad movies coming out right now, look back through the years.
Bad movies have always been with us.
I used a RC car, and put a X10 camera on it. I wired the car's remote control to the parallel port, and fed the video in - so I could wander around the office with it on my screen, controlled via keyboard.
Pretty fun. The range on the remote wasn't amazing though - could fix that by going to a better car.
-
If you need a university course to learn logic, you're not much of a programmer. I took a fair bit of logic - but only because as a programmer it was trivially easy. Other students weren't used to thinking logically, assigning meaning to cryptic symbols and such.
Logic is very easy when you're used to breaking things down recursively and relying on process. Anyone who can computer program has to be at least middle of the pack in terms of thinking of things logically. Philosophy is just logic without good proofs.
As to language skills I agree - I've known a few programmers who could benefit from freshman English.
We block a lot of file types, but not .eml.
.EML's (including some of our clients, who forward us jobs to do that mean money). So while it would be a good idea to block them, we (and a lot of places, I'd imagine) don't.
Some old email programs attach forwarded messages and replies as
These mail viruses have all been evolutionary steps. The big one will run straight from the preview pane, will send e-mails with no real signature, and will mimic other emails sent by that user.
.EML files. That would get around the filters many companies have set up.
As a simpler step, these viruses should be hiding themselves within attached
Security is better with multiple servers, simply because there are some exploits that require multiple services on the same machine. I'm not sure why you think multiple OS/hardware setups will make things more secure. There's plenty of ISP's that had one Solaris install, and that was the machine that got broken by sadmind exploits a year ago. That doesn't mean the Solaris box was less secure than the NT machines in the rest of their building - it means that sys admin time/knowledge was focused on another architecture and this left a hole.
Security isn't necessarily going to be worse when you add a mix of systems. Security may get better, if you add a more secure box in place of a less secure one - and you have the resources to administer all the types of systems you have.
However, because it's harder to administer, there's good odds it will be less secure in the end.
We've made a business of working almost exclusively with insurance companies. Because we know the industry we talk to them about things they actually want. We understand what they ask for. We deliver quickly.
Also, nobody is going to beat down any bushes to find you. And your business better look like a real business, not "some guy". Get stationary. Have a real office. Ignore this advice at your absolute peril.
And you want fairly large projects. Little projects take almost as much work, and don't pay anything.
-
Was his fear based on Linux, or on the simple desire to limit the diversity of machines on the network. Security is easier to administrate when you limit yourself to a certain selection of OS's and products. He may even understand that Linux is typically very secure.
I know my company often denies requests like this not out of fear of something, but of fear of _another_ something.
I've had Word documents that were hundreds of pages. I've worked in Word for years. I have _never_ lost a document - although several times I've had to go back to the convenient backup file because of a power outage. There's my anecdote, and it bears just as much weight as yours.
Are these bugs repeatable, demonstrable behavior? I'll bet they aren't. Do you have statistics, or are you just going to point me to more anecdotes?
I'm sorry that you had problems with Word - but actual testing, benchmarking, and the experiences of millions of users fail to suggest that this is common Word behavior.
They should make a distribution that's set up to mimic some default Windows behavior - eg: you can change the screen resolution by right clicking on the desktop, you can close windows by hitting Alt-F4.
Would go a long way I think.
He's going to come build a supercomputer in there. Perhaps he already has!
There's a lot of things to complain about with MS, but Office is certainly not CRAP.
You're right, one day people will use something else. And that will be right around the time that MS can no longer differentiate its product from free competitors.
There are costs and benefits to a lot of different software options right now. To deny that Office offers any benefits is ignorant. If you talk to people developing competing products, I'm sure they'll tell you the respect they have for Office - and how much work it is to create such a huge, feature-rich product.
And somehow, millions of people every day manage to somehow produce documents on it. I personally don't like parts of Word, but I respect that it has been built to satisfy a broad spectrum of users, and for the most part does so.
Any OS should be happy to have an app set as strong as Office.
-
But later in the article, Nintendo claims it's sold 800,000 - 750,000 if you go by some other article. And then this one article says...
I think the clear thing now is that everyone is winning this round of the console wars. Especially gamers who reap the rewards of healthy competition.
More than that, if we could reconstruct the shape of these raindrops we could build a "Prehistoric Rain" park.
While MS has it's problems, I think trouble shooting is fairly easy in general. Problems with randomly corrupted DLL's are fairly rare in my experience (in a company with 300 users). Usually problems with DLL's happen after installs/uninstalls of poorly written software, and it's fairly easy to diagnose problems.
In the rare cases where critical DLL's have been lost or damaged, it's trivial to do a repair install. I did one on my own machine (after cable guy installed some crap) about a month ago. Didn't lose anything except my browser settings (as it reverted to IE 5.0).
I hear a lot of complaints about Windows DLL hell, but I'm not sure where it is - perhaps it's in the '95 series OS's. Windows 2000 just seems to work.
-