Finally, yes, dumbing things down is bad. I want people to not only use computers, but understand them. Maybe then we won't have so many email viruses spread by people launching attachments.
I don't see why people should "understand how their computers work" any more than they should understand how a car, VCR or a cellphone works.
Personally I want is software that's easy to learn in a few minutes so that I can get actual work done with it. That means that the interface is not that much different from what I'm used to. I don't care how the software works internally.
Viruses are an irrelevant problem in the large scale of things, although for a computer professionals they might seem as a sign of an impending apocalypse. Yet, no-one has ever been killed by a computer virus.
Sure you can. You can do whatever you want because you dictate the terms. Even if people, OEMs and developers get pissed off at you, they'll still keep using your product because there's no feasible alternative.
they where to dumb things down.
You say that as if it is a bad thing?
Re:Two things that need to happen in 2004
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Personally it would be nice to see some INNOVATIVE navigation ideas
Unfortunately there's very little you can innovate with unless you're the one dominating the desktop markets.
A novel navigation idea in Windows: People get annoyed but get over it because they have to.
A novel navigation idea in Linux: People get annoyed ("it doesn't work the same way I'm used to") and give up.
And just how relying on X's "-nolisten" option is different from relying on its general security? If the network access is not programmed in, it cannot be abused.
So all the 550 X11 exploits on securityfocus (go ahead and do the search) are nothing to worry about and OpenBSD's decision not to recommend X is overkill?
Without the network connectivity the number of potential exploits would be 0. That's what I mean. I want my computer on the net but I don't want X to have anything to do with.
What people want is a version of X without the unnecessary network transparency. You may need it but most poeple do not. The attitude you show will only makes people hate X even more.
Re:Working for the Bush adminstration?
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
drunken escapades
Nothing wrong with that.
blowjobs from interns
Nothing wrong with that.
complete ignorance about foreign policy?
As opposed to the current president who has single-handedly alienated the rest of the world?
A fun book, no doubt about it, but it's kind of funny to see how the highly educated (IT) professionals repeat the mistakes of the previous blue-collar generations in believing that the boss is the root of all evil.
Most managers work for the better of the company and are burdened by workers who "just work there". No sense of loyalty or obligation to the ones who hired them in the first place.
This level of user-friendliness will not come until there are enough people using linux to make it profitable for the manufacturers to write drivers for the linux platform.
That's rather a good argument but I think it still does not hold water. Just how much profit do the manufacturers make writing drivers as opposed to selling hardware?
Answer me this: what will you lose if "the moron" users are able to simply plug in their scanner, external USB hard drive or an USB CD-RW drive and use it straight away?
For the average person that needs to be able to plug in their digital camera without going into the terminal window, we think that the user's experience with any brand of Linux will be sub-par.
Why, oh why must it be so?
Why is it so hard to have real user-friendliness in Linux?
Yeah. Too often. Particularly when someone wants to make a case for the capital punishment.
The only purpose any punishment serves is to protect the society from further damage by limiting the freedom of an individual after the crime has happened.
The idea of the punishment as a deterrent to crime does not work. Why? Because nobody commits a crime thinking that he/she'll get caught.
If it did, we would have had the perfect, crimeless society back in the middle ages when not only criminals but mere suspects were tortured to death or kept in dank dungeons at his/her majesty's pleasure.
As far as I know there was a crackdown on Enron as a company.
If you're talking about how the execs should have been hung and quartered but were not, I don't think that's any evidence of a bias on behalf of DoJ. It's more like common sense. It would be just plain silly to hold few individuals personally responsible for colossally mismanaged business of a company as large as Enron. Who would it benefit if the executives were thrown in prison for life and told to pay billions in damages (which they'd never be able to do)?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhuh? And how do you know it's not just "vapourware"?
That's how.
So, have the requests by Jorg Schilling been finally answered?
I don't see why people should "understand how their computers work" any more than they should understand how a car, VCR or a cellphone works. Personally I want is software that's easy to learn in a few minutes so that I can get actual work done with it. That means that the interface is not that much different from what I'm used to. I don't care how the software works internally.
Viruses are an irrelevant problem in the large scale of things, although for a computer professionals they might seem as a sign of an impending apocalypse. Yet, no-one has ever been killed by a computer virus.
Sure you can. You can do whatever you want because you dictate the terms. Even if people, OEMs and developers get pissed off at you, they'll still keep using your product because there's no feasible alternative.
they where to dumb things down.
You say that as if it is a bad thing?
Unfortunately there's very little you can innovate with unless you're the one dominating the desktop markets.
A novel navigation idea in Windows: People get annoyed but get over it because they have to.
A novel navigation idea in Linux: People get annoyed ("it doesn't work the same way I'm used to") and give up.
In 2004 Linux will be awesome - awesome to the max!
And just how relying on X's "-nolisten" option is different from relying on its general security? If the network access is not programmed in, it cannot be abused.
Ok.
So all the 550 X11 exploits on securityfocus (go ahead and do the search) are nothing to worry about and OpenBSD's decision not to recommend X is overkill?
Without the network connectivity the number of potential exploits would be 0. That's what I mean. I want my computer on the net but I don't want X to have anything to do with.
I'm talking about security. GUI-related ports are security holes just waiting to be exploited.
What people want is a version of X without the unnecessary network transparency. You may need it but most poeple do not. The attitude you show will only makes people hate X even more.
Nothing wrong with that.
blowjobs from interns
Nothing wrong with that.
complete ignorance about foreign policy?
As opposed to the current president who has single-handedly alienated the rest of the world?
And you still wonder why corporations treat their employees like commodity?
Of course I could re-install Mandrake over my RedHat, but why should I? If it's free software, then why the hell is my cam not supported by Redhat?
Most managers work for the better of the company and are burdened by workers who "just work there". No sense of loyalty or obligation to the ones who hired them in the first place.
User-friendliness means that the device works out of box under any distribution or after installing the drivers off a CD.
I haven't seen drivers for my Sony digicam. Therefore Linux is user-unfriendly.
That's rather a good argument but I think it still does not hold water. Just how much profit do the manufacturers make writing drivers as opposed to selling hardware?
No, that's a cop-out answer of an elitist.
Answer me this: what will you lose if "the moron" users are able to simply plug in their scanner, external USB hard drive or an USB CD-RW drive and use it straight away?
Why, oh why must it be so?
Why is it so hard to have real user-friendliness in Linux?
Yeah. Too often. Particularly when someone wants to make a case for the capital punishment.
The only purpose any punishment serves is to protect the society from further damage by limiting the freedom of an individual after the crime has happened.
The idea of the punishment as a deterrent to crime does not work. Why? Because nobody commits a crime thinking that he/she'll get caught.
If it did, we would have had the perfect, crimeless society back in the middle ages when not only criminals but mere suspects were tortured to death or kept in dank dungeons at his/her majesty's pleasure.
Ok. That's where you just lost all your credibility.
The 2000 elections were perfectly legal and I challenge you to post evidence to the contrary.
As far as I know there was a crackdown on Enron as a company.
If you're talking about how the execs should have been hung and quartered but were not, I don't think that's any evidence of a bias on behalf of DoJ. It's more like common sense. It would be just plain silly to hold few individuals personally responsible for colossally mismanaged business of a company as large as Enron. Who would it benefit if the executives were thrown in prison for life and told to pay billions in damages (which they'd never be able to do)?
Until a case is brought against them, all "evidence" is just speculation by the tinfoil hat crew.
What's this?
Just out of curiosity. Why is it poison? Isn't an isotope (D) chemically identical to its most naturally occuring form (H).