Nope, I'm quite familiar with all of the above, and let me tell you that just like web access at your desk they can all (well, maybe not coffee) get you fired if you spend too much time on them. It's just much easier to hide the browser when your boss walks in. Don't even start telling me about how you only use it when you need it. I am an admin. I see the logs. I know the abuse (easily 95% of the usage).
Of course, if it's your pc, you can always choose to not have that disk encrypted to start with... geeze, people, think before you spew.
[sarcasm] BTW, I'm sure glad you decided to share that ulta hig-tech way of switching between your hard drives, I'm sure nobody EVER thought of that before. Wow, you sure are a heavy duty hacker. [/sarcasm] FYI, I used to do that waaayyyy too many years ago. I used the turbo switch that was present on most cases at the time to do it.
Not everyone is in IT. You know, IT controls the computers in a company... but it's the people that actually USE those computers, rather than admin them, that are doing the WORK for the company. They are the majority, and only need to do their job.. like data entry, spreadsheets, drawings, content creation, etc. They certainly don't need to be surfing for technical help on the pc's, as that is IT's job. If they need technical help for their own job, I would have to say they are not very qualified because last time I checked, you were supposed to know how to do what you get paid for.
Damn I feel old. I remember when we actually went to work to work, not surf. If there was anything on your screen that didn't directly relate to what you were working on, you got in trouble. No wonder it seems that productivity is down everywhere I look.
"While we love to hate the Redmond giant, there is no denying that wherever there is money, whatever is the next big thing; Microsoft invariably ends up being there sooner rather than later."
I read the whole article, but knew as soon as I read this sentance that I didn't really need to. When has MS *ever* been "sooner rather than later" to the next big thing? Historicaly they have been the ones slow to the punch. One rather outstanding example... the internet.
Ubuntu needs to stay the course with Gnome. Let the whiners whine. Ubuntu needs to stay focused onto what it is, a highly polished Gnome desktop distribution.
If everybody that whines gets the attention they want, Ubuntu will become as bloated as any other general purpose distro.
"1) Canonical sponsors many more gnome developers than KDE developers -- just look how many more gnome-related commits appear in the Dapper commit log."
Duh. Ubuntu is a distro built around Gnome.
"2) Edubuntu, whose education-specific programs come almost exclusively from the KDE Education Suite, runs on gnome instead of KDE. Canonical has never sponsored a KDE Education Suite developer, even though Edubuntu simply wouldn't exist without their work."
And the KDE Education Suite developer would still be doing what they were doing if there were no Ubuntu. Sounds like they are starting to get a bit eager for some of the pie, even though they volunteer to do what they do.
"3) Canonical does not financially support the team that creates Kubuntu-LiveCDs, so they have to pay all the expenses from their own pockets."
Did Canonical say they would finacially support the team creating the Kubuntu-Live cds? If not, hey, it's a vounteer operation just like most other distros. Suck it up. You chose the job.
"4) Kubuntu doesn't accept community contributions (ie. contributions by anyone beside Jonathan Riddell and Andreas Mueller). A lot of volunteers wanted to contribute, but they can't because they have no access."
Don't know anything about this situation, so I'll give it a big "So what? The people that run Kubuntu can do whatever they want to do. It's their baby.".
"5) The name of the version featuring gnome is called Ubuntu, while the version featuring KDE has a K added to the front. This makes it sound like gnome is the default, standard, and KDE is some sort of offshoot. It would be more equitable to name them Ubuntu-KDE and Ubuntu-GNOME, or Kubuntu and Gubuntu. "
Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river. Maybe because Gnome *IS* the default standard for Ubuntu, and KDE is an offshoot?
You know, I've been mostly anti-ms for a long time now. I've been around in the normal pockets of resistance for just as long. I really have had a strange feeling lately, like there is a wave building against them. I see more media biased against them, as well as other governments recognizing their behaviour for what it is. Word is getting out, and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I'm really getting the feeling that the castle is starting to crumble a bit under the weight. I'm curious to see if it will be death by a million mosquito bites, or if it's going to be a big shockwave that knocks them down... and they WILL be knocked down, maybe not out, but their stranglehold is showing signs of weakness.
Oh, please sir. Share with us your secret to get XP booting up in 11 secs... seeing how you say adding 11 secs is doubling your boot time. Personally, whenever I boot my machine, regardless of the OS I'm booting to, I just hit the button on my way to grab my morning coffee, or something. It's running when I get to it and I simply don't sweat boot times.
"If a patch breaks a mission critical piece of software it could cost some companies hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour."
If you deploy a patch on a mission critical (I cringe to think anything considered "mission critical" would be running on a windows box) machine without testing to see if it breaks anything, then you deserve to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
No, it is YOU who seem to neglect the fact that it's not the simple act of bundling apps that is the problem. It's bundling apps which could leverage *your existing monopoly status* into another area. Last time I checked, Apple has not been tried and found to hold such status, therfore they are NOT breaking any rules by bundling whatever the hell they want.
"Forcing Microsoft to open it's closed source code, and help it's competitors, and not doing the same thing for every other software development firm, is wrong."
Wow, how very WRONG are you on this one? They *don't want* the source code. They told MS they don't want it, they don't need it, it's not the right answer. Sourcecode!=APIs
"OMG MS 'r bad!" Sorry to say, but you really are pushing "noob speak" on the wrong person.:/
That's not an insult, it's simply the hard, cold, truth. I've been around way too many business clients (not to mention friends and family) for this to not be obvious to me.
"When did I say anything about Microsoft selling computers?"
You didn't, but you seemed to imply that if it's not in the OS that it's not going to be on the computer.. here, I'll quote you for context...
"I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files."
See? Right there. It could reasonably be implied that if it's not in the os that it won't be on the pc (although yes, there are plenty of pc's that do NOT need to go online, nor play media files). If MS does not include it, and it is deemed socially neccessary, your friendly pc source will likely include that functionality (along with backup disks for reinstall), or alternately if you build your own systems you are more than capable of including that functionality for yourself. It's simply being pointed out that YOU used a bad argument.
"Sigh, and I didn't say any other company had a monopoly. I said that other companies bundle their own software together. Doesn't OSX come with Safari and Quicktime? And iChat? And there's no court ruling baring them from doing that. That's an abuse of judicial powers."
No, you said *specifically* in reference to what MS was in trouble for "Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing", which shows that you do not *understand* what they are in trouble for. It DOES have to do with taking certain actions *when you are ruled to have monopoly status*. The other poster was making the point that the other companies you mentioned do NOT have monopoly status, therefor they get to play under the standard rules, and NOT those set in place to prevent those with monopoly status from working in an unfair and anti-competitive manner (which is ONLY possible if you have the control that monopoly status brings you). So, simply put, they are NOT doing exactly the same thing, because they are not breaking rules that have been set in place for them.
BTW, the car analogies are very, very worn out, and not even very relevent... but I'll go with it anyway, and correct it so that it actually fits this situation: Imagine, if you will, that Ford sold 90% of all cars. Imagine that they were tried and found to wield monopoly power in the auto sector. Imagine also, that they created a radio which picked up non-standard frequencies which they themselves controlled, and then included it standard with EVERY car they sold, AND integrated the controls into the same panel with the ventilation controls thus making it very hard to remove and replace (notice I said replace, not augment with another seperate system). They would then have the control to license those stations for whatever amount they wanted, and they might even make the reception on their non-standard freqs a bit better than those "normal" stations, to the extent that people stopped listening to the normal stations. They would have then leveraged their existing monopoly power to create a monopoly in another area.
"I till don't see why that's a problem. True, there are better programs out there. And true, it's difficult to get rid of them. But why would you want to get rid of them? If other programs are installed and told to be the default programs for their respective files, you'll never see IE or WMA again. Uninstaling them won't reclaim any significant disk space. And if you're that concerned about what's on your system, you shouldn't be using Windows:P "
There is a very valid reason, and you are obviously missing it because your guesses (you mean your best guess is that people are concerned about the disk space it takes up?!? That's a pretty sad try, and simply shows that you have a very shallow view of the situation) are way off the mark. The reason that MS should be restricted from including their own closed and propriatary apps is because doing so gives them an avenue, that they know is *guaranteed to be on every single windows machine* through which they can then push their own server services such as video and music delivery (again the same theme with them, attempting to leverage their existing desktop monopoly to create another in a different area). I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to envision any possible future where MS are in any kind of control of my home theatre experience.
Note to Karma Farmer, there is a difference between not knowing about something at it's earliest onset, and being late to the party. I think it's a bit absurd to think that someone who used Slackware at ver 1.0 as coming "to linux fairly late". Please adjust your perception to the true reality field.
"You're a retard. sudo is the right way to do things."
So sayeth the anonymous coward. I prefer that if someone were to somehow gain my user password that it doesn't automatically entitle them to root access.
The latests stats I remember reading are an average of 4 mins to compromise an unprotected windows machine if it's on the net. No, you don't have to go to warez sites. No, you don't have to go to porn sites. All you have to do is have the machine turned on and online. That's it. That's why I wait till after I have any clients machines patched and prepared as well as I can before I ever plug in the network.
And how, pray tell, does inconveniencing a smaller set of customers look out for the larger set, when the larger set has no benefit or loss either way due to interoperablity with other systems? It's pure selfishness. The stories about looking out for customers is all smoke and mirrors.
Slashdot Mirror
"cakes, coffee, tobacco, newspapers and gossip"
Nope, I'm quite familiar with all of the above, and let me tell you that just like web access at your desk they can all (well, maybe not coffee) get you fired if you spend too much time on them. It's just much easier to hide the browser when your boss walks in. Don't even start telling me about how you only use it when you need it. I am an admin. I see the logs. I know the abuse (easily 95% of the usage).
Of course, if it's your pc, you can always choose to not have that disk encrypted to start with... geeze, people, think before you spew.
[sarcasm] BTW, I'm sure glad you decided to share that ulta hig-tech way of switching between your hard drives, I'm sure nobody EVER thought of that before. Wow, you sure are a heavy duty hacker. [/sarcasm]
FYI, I used to do that waaayyyy too many years ago. I used the turbo switch that was present on most cases at the time to do it.
Not everyone is in IT. You know, IT controls the computers in a company... but it's the people that actually USE those computers, rather than admin them, that are doing the WORK for the company. They are the majority, and only need to do their job.. like data entry, spreadsheets, drawings, content creation, etc. They certainly don't need to be surfing for technical help on the pc's, as that is IT's job. If they need technical help for their own job, I would have to say they are not very qualified because last time I checked, you were supposed to know how to do what you get paid for.
Oh noes!! What will we ever do without the web?
Damn I feel old. I remember when we actually went to work to work, not surf. If there was anything on your screen that didn't directly relate to what you were working on, you got in trouble. No wonder it seems that productivity is down everywhere I look.
"While we love to hate the Redmond giant, there is no denying that wherever there is money, whatever is the next big thing; Microsoft invariably ends up being there sooner rather than later."
I read the whole article, but knew as soon as I read this sentance that I didn't really need to. When has MS *ever* been "sooner rather than later" to the next big thing? Historicaly they have been the ones slow to the punch. One rather outstanding example... the internet.
How can you compare a game to an operating system? Oh my.
You sound like you need to get laid more often.
Ubuntu needs to stay the course with Gnome. Let the whiners whine. Ubuntu needs to stay focused onto what it is, a highly polished Gnome desktop distribution.
If everybody that whines gets the attention they want, Ubuntu will become as bloated as any other general purpose distro.
"1) Canonical sponsors many more gnome developers than KDE developers -- just look how many more gnome-related commits appear in the Dapper commit log."
Duh. Ubuntu is a distro built around Gnome.
"2) Edubuntu, whose education-specific programs come almost exclusively from the KDE Education Suite, runs on gnome instead of KDE. Canonical has never sponsored a KDE Education Suite developer, even though Edubuntu simply wouldn't exist without their work."
And the KDE Education Suite developer would still be doing what they were doing if there were no Ubuntu. Sounds like they are starting to get a bit eager for some of the pie, even though they volunteer to do what they do.
"3) Canonical does not financially support the team that creates Kubuntu-LiveCDs, so they have to pay all the expenses from their own pockets."
Did Canonical say they would finacially support the team creating the Kubuntu-Live cds? If not, hey, it's a vounteer operation just like most other distros. Suck it up. You chose the job.
"4) Kubuntu doesn't accept community contributions (ie. contributions by anyone beside Jonathan Riddell and Andreas Mueller). A lot of volunteers wanted to contribute, but they can't because they have no access."
Don't know anything about this situation, so I'll give it a big "So what? The people that run Kubuntu can do whatever they want to do. It's their baby.".
"5) The name of the version featuring gnome is called Ubuntu, while the version featuring KDE has a K added to the front. This makes it sound like gnome is the default, standard, and KDE is some sort of offshoot. It would be more equitable to name them Ubuntu-KDE and Ubuntu-GNOME, or Kubuntu and Gubuntu.
"
Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river. Maybe because Gnome *IS* the default standard for Ubuntu, and KDE is an offshoot?
You know, I've been mostly anti-ms for a long time now. I've been around in the normal pockets of resistance for just as long. I really have had a strange feeling lately, like there is a wave building against them. I see more media biased against them, as well as other governments recognizing their behaviour for what it is. Word is getting out, and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I'm really getting the feeling that the castle is starting to crumble a bit under the weight. I'm curious to see if it will be death by a million mosquito bites, or if it's going to be a big shockwave that knocks them down... and they WILL be knocked down, maybe not out, but their stranglehold is showing signs of weakness.
Oh, please sir. Share with us your secret to get XP booting up in 11 secs... seeing how you say adding 11 secs is doubling your boot time. Personally, whenever I boot my machine, regardless of the OS I'm booting to, I just hit the button on my way to grab my morning coffee, or something. It's running when I get to it and I simply don't sweat boot times.
"If a patch breaks a mission critical piece of software it could cost some companies hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour."
If you deploy a patch on a mission critical (I cringe to think anything considered "mission critical" would be running on a windows box) machine without testing to see if it breaks anything, then you deserve to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Probably BYOB (bring your own baggie). ;)
No, it is YOU who seem to neglect the fact that it's not the simple act of bundling apps that is the problem. It's bundling apps which could leverage *your existing monopoly status* into another area. Last time I checked, Apple has not been tried and found to hold such status, therfore they are NOT breaking any rules by bundling whatever the hell they want.
:/
"Forcing Microsoft to open it's closed source code, and help it's competitors, and not doing the same thing for every other software development firm, is wrong."
Wow, how very WRONG are you on this one? They *don't want* the source code. They told MS they don't want it, they don't need it, it's not the right answer. Sourcecode!=APIs
"OMG MS 'r bad!"
Sorry to say, but you really are pushing "noob speak" on the wrong person.
"That's an unnecessary insult."
That's not an insult, it's simply the hard, cold, truth. I've been around way too many business clients (not to mention friends and family) for this to not be obvious to me.
"When did I say anything about Microsoft selling computers?"
You didn't, but you seemed to imply that if it's not in the OS that it's not going to be on the computer.. here, I'll quote you for context...
"I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files."
See? Right there. It could reasonably be implied that if it's not in the os that it won't be on the pc (although yes, there are plenty of pc's that do NOT need to go online, nor play media files). If MS does not include it, and it is deemed socially neccessary, your friendly pc source will likely include that functionality (along with backup disks for reinstall), or alternately if you build your own systems you are more than capable of including that functionality for yourself. It's simply being pointed out that YOU used a bad argument.
"Sigh, and I didn't say any other company had a monopoly. I said that other companies bundle their own software together. Doesn't OSX come with Safari and Quicktime? And iChat? And there's no court ruling baring them from doing that. That's an abuse of judicial powers."
No, you said *specifically* in reference to what MS was in trouble for "Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing", which shows that you do not *understand* what they are in trouble for. It DOES have to do with taking certain actions *when you are ruled to have monopoly status*. The other poster was making the point that the other companies you mentioned do NOT have monopoly status, therefor they get to play under the standard rules, and NOT those set in place to prevent those with monopoly status from working in an unfair and anti-competitive manner (which is ONLY possible if you have the control that monopoly status brings you). So, simply put, they are NOT doing exactly the same thing, because they are not breaking rules that have been set in place for them.
BTW, the car analogies are very, very worn out, and not even very relevent... but I'll go with it anyway, and correct it so that it actually fits this situation:
Imagine, if you will, that Ford sold 90% of all cars. Imagine that they were tried and found to wield monopoly power in the auto sector. Imagine also, that they created a radio which picked up non-standard frequencies which they themselves controlled, and then included it standard with EVERY car they sold, AND integrated the controls into the same panel with the ventilation controls thus making it very hard to remove and replace (notice I said replace, not augment with another seperate system). They would then have the control to license those stations for whatever amount they wanted, and they might even make the reception on their non-standard freqs a bit better than those "normal" stations, to the extent that people stopped listening to the normal stations. They would have then leveraged their existing monopoly power to create a monopoly in another area.
"I till don't see why that's a problem. True, there are better programs out there. And true, it's difficult to get rid of them. But why would you want to get rid of them? If other programs are installed and told to be the default programs for their respective files, you'll never see IE or WMA again. Uninstaling them won't reclaim any significant disk space. And if you're that concerned about what's on your system, you shouldn't be using Windows :P "
There is a very valid reason, and you are obviously missing it because your guesses (you mean your best guess is that people are concerned about the disk space it takes up?!? That's a pretty sad try, and simply shows that you have a very shallow view of the situation) are way off the mark. The reason that MS should be restricted from including their own closed and propriatary apps is because doing so gives them an avenue, that they know is *guaranteed to be on every single windows machine* through which they can then push their own server services such as video and music delivery (again the same theme with them, attempting to leverage their existing desktop monopoly to create another in a different area). I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to envision any possible future where MS are in any kind of control of my home theatre experience.
Oh pretty please, list some of that elusive MS innovation that you speak of so that we all may bask in it's glory. While you're at it, you could submit it here. http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.sh tml
The WWW is not the internet, and would not exist without the internet.. at least not in it's present form.
Oohhh, look. It's astroturf.
Note to Karma Farmer, there is a difference between not knowing about something at it's earliest onset, and being late to the party. I think it's a bit absurd to think that someone who used Slackware at ver 1.0 as coming "to linux fairly late". Please adjust your perception to the true reality field.
"You're a retard. sudo is the right way to do things."
So sayeth the anonymous coward. I prefer that if someone were to somehow gain my user password that it doesn't automatically entitle them to root access.
The latests stats I remember reading are an average of 4 mins to compromise an unprotected windows machine if it's on the net. No, you don't have to go to warez sites. No, you don't have to go to porn sites. All you have to do is have the machine turned on and online. That's it. That's why I wait till after I have any clients machines patched and prepared as well as I can before I ever plug in the network.
If it's in a "state of flux" it's purely because MS willingly makes it that way.
And how, pray tell, does inconveniencing a smaller set of customers look out for the larger set, when the larger set has no benefit or loss either way due to interoperablity with other systems? It's pure selfishness. The stories about looking out for customers is all smoke and mirrors.
"Honestly, I think he looks good. Much better than the centerfold shot of him when he was young and lying on the desk."
:/
Wow. Maybe I need some of what you're smoking, but he looks like death warmed over.
I wish I had mod points. Short and sweet. My thoughts exactly.