personal anecdote:
I'm getting a mattress delivered to my condo today (in Miami). Our management has a strict policy about reserving the elevator several days in advance, and will refuse any delivery not scheduled. So I was talking to the front desk security guard about it yesterday, and the exchange went something like this.
Me:...I know you guys are ridiculously strict about your service elevator. Him: Yeah, but don't you prefer it this way? I mean, we can keep track of anything coming in and out of the condos. Me: Not really. Frankly, how is it any of your business what I'm bringing in and out of my condo? Him: Well, it's for security, you know? Someone could easily bring in a bomb or something. If it happened to the World Trade Center, it could happen here. We've got families and... (all I remember is a faint buzzing noise from here on out) Me: (incredulous stare with mouth agape)
... So this guy just told me that we have to schedule our service elevators to protect against terrorism. And he compared some random high-rise condo in Miami to the World Trade Center. Whether that's his personal view, or that of the management, I don't really know or care. I was absolutely dumbfounded that this would be the reason they cite.
And apparently it's okay to bring bombs into my condo building, as long as I schedule it beforehand.
You (and most of those arguing with you) don't seem to understand the fundamental problem with Guantanamo isn't whether the prisoners are being tortured. The problem is that people are being thrown in a detainment facility, with no trial, and no access to the outside world. THIS goes against the most basic principles of the United States. But even beyond this, some your statements are absurd.
These are non-uniformed combatants... They waged war against our country...
Um, what? What uniforms should they wear, since we effectively destroyed whatever government they had and plunged them into anarchy? Also, I know the Ministry of Truth makes it difficult, but try to remember that WE waged war on THEM.
You go on to detail how poorly the prisoners behave... that's because they're fucking prisoners! We invaded their country and took them captive, and because they fight back we label them all terrorists? We went into Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism (well, first it was WMD, then terrorism in general, then tyranny, but who's keeping track?)... it is likely that there were/are terrorists in Iraq (just as in other parts of the middle east, just as in other parts of the world), but we have taken the stance that ANYONE who defends themselves against the U.S. "liberators" is a terrorist. Wake up.
So perhaps a stint at Gitmo is like a mini-vacation. Perhaps they give all the prisoners manicures and Egyptian cotton sheets. The point is that we have summarily classified a group of people to having NO RIGHTS, simply because a few of them pose a threat. Demonize them and call them all enemy combatants or terrorists, and keep believing that your government is guilty of no wrong-doing...
With a certain allusion to your handle, I must ask:
Why do you own a computer? If you like to get online and use email, there are internet appliances that are much cheaper, and they are optimized for web browsing and digital communication.
If you're editing digital video, there are professional editing stations that cost less than a cutting-edge PC that can perform the same functions, perhaps a little better.
If you're editing audio, or playing games, or performing calculations, or pretty much doing anything on a computer, there are specialized devices that can do them better. The sacrifice of a little quality/efficiency/performance is often acceptable for the sake of convenience and consolidation.
Yes, I would also like a phone that just has certain features, but I would also like a computer that's optimized for the specific task-set that I perform. However, that would not be cost-effective or realistic to demand.
This is such a pussy statement. "Our freedoms are being taken away every day, but now they're coming for our internets, so we're going to make a stand!" Why don't you make a stand in the real world, where it actually matters? Is it just because it's so much more convenient to do it from the comfort of your home, masked by (at least some) anonymity? If you truly believe in freedom, you should be out there protesting, rallying revolution, doing something other than whining when they come after your last bastion of freedom.
I appreciate your open-minded approach to this conversation.
I don't assert anything in absolutes; I think it's both arrogant and ignorant. So I believe there's just as much chance that a god/God does exist, as there is that we are the end result of a chemical fluke billions of years ago. And certainly, Aristotle's "Priority of Act" and "Immovable Mover" arguments make it difficult to deny the existence of something greater.
...if that's the answer, then why should we spend so much time trying to fabricate an alternative
Because we will likely never know if that is the answer. I think it's dismissive to call it 'fabricating an alternative' (even if that turns out to be the case); it's more of a quest for the truth. Of course, on both sides of the debate are people who have already determined the "truth" for themselves, and this is a quest for being proven right.
The next part of your post is a little unclear to me, regarding the "complete species" thing. If you're asking why, for example, apes exist if humans evolved from them, the answer is simple: circumstance. Scientists believe apes diverged into two groups: jungle-dwellers and plains-dwellers. Those that lived in the jungle were suited for their environment, and did not drastically evolve. However, those that lived on the plains were not as suited for the environment, and adapted over time to bipedal motion, tool utilization, enhanced logic, and all the other stuff.
I certainly do agree with your last sentiment. Reading literary and philosophical works from throughout the last two millenia shows how little people really have changed.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'd like to reply to your post. The views expressed are mine, and may not conform to any predefined set of views.
The reason that I favor evolution to creationism is that it demands explanation. My understanding of creationism (admittedly very basic, but unbiased)-- and indeed, most religious perspectives-- is that there is no answer to be found. A higher power did whatever it did, and we can never know its nature, so let's just accept it. This is not the attitude that has brought forth all the technological advancement over the span of human history. Why would a higher power "create" us with such a disposition for logic, and then expect us to deny it?
Evolution keeps us looking for that "missing link", to further solidify the theory with each new example. It isn't satisfied to say, "well, life originated in water, and moved to land, and now here we are"; it constantly refines itself, seeks new possibilities, and attempts to prove or disprove those possibilities.
and wondering how that is actually going to cause a new species, rather than just a more specialised version within the same species
You should extend that idea over a few thousand or million iterations, and see what you end up with. Most evolution is attributed to mutations, so a drastic change may have occured in one generation, or in 500... a stray group of cells (a prehistoric cancer of sorts) may have had the ability to process air and extract oxygen, and eventually beget a set of lungs for the creature. The creatures emerge from water, and those with larger fins survive, as they have greater motility and can eat more food. Those fins gain strength, and can eventually propel them forward consistently, eventually begetting legs. And so on, and so on...
I concede that evolution may not be correct. Perhaps a creator just created everything to look like it could have evolved from other things. But given our species' great capacity for reason, our defining characteristic, doesn't it seem more logical to follow the path of evidence, rather than of belief?
The risk to end-users is that they might/will end up with a pirated version that may contain malware. At least, that's the Microsoft spin. I agree that this is a pretty pathetic move on Microsoft's part.
1. There is no such thing as slavery? To say that someone is WILLING to accept $.40/hr to not STARVE TO DEATH is a little contrived. No, they are not physically taking something from these people, but they are condemning them to a pretty bleak fucking existence while they get rich off the "slave" labor.
2. a. My statement had nothing to do with the poor paying for shit they can't afford. My point was simply that that is how the rich get rich. By minimizing cost (the aforementioned "slave" labor), they are able to reap huge profits from whatever they're producing. There was no ethical argument with this; they charge what the market will bear, and apparently people think a $3 kninknack is worth $100. If the poor are living beyond their means, it's their fault for not being responsible.
b. What? These people are forced into these menial lives by a cyclical system of oppression. They are not given a chance at education or entrepreneurship. This isn't a job at fucking Burger King where you can tell the person to go get a real job if they're unhappy. They have been systematically deprived of the talent and ability to even escape sub-poverty, let alone engage in capitalistic indrustrialism.
I think you need to go take a look around outside your fucking suburb. Maybe then you'll have a better idea of what life is really like for countless millions of people.
I don't know anyone who has been made rich by taking from the poor.
That's probably because you're not rich enough.
All those workers who fill the factories to produce cheap consumer crap? Yeah, they're having their lives taken away just to eat a scrap of food. All the CEOs of companies (western and eastern, I'm not discriminating) that move production to the lowest bidder, and pay out $.40 USD an hour, and charge $100 for a product that cost $3 to make, those are the ones that get rich by taking from the poor.
And you can't really argue that value is relative, and the people making $.40/hour find that to be an acceptable reimbursement for their labor. Because they don't; they'd just rather not die.
Not a very serious note, actually, but I'll respond.
I doubt many people buy an OS as a holiday gift. But they do consider buying computers, and if that computer has a brand-new OS, then it likely influences their decision.
Well, you figure the post is like the driveshaft, and the car analogies are the flange defribillators... without them, your car may run, but you'll certainly be getting worse gas mileage.
I used to hate the "tree falls" question, too... "Of course it makes a sound. Energy is released as sound waves, and dissipates through air and other matter before vibrating our inner ear membranes."
But now I figure it alludes to the idea that reality is an illusion, and exists only to the bounds of your senses; crudely equivalent to cogito, ergo sum: "I can only be sure of what I know and perceive." At least, that's what I tell myself to keep from cringing every time I hear it.
I don't know a whole lot about Linux servers, so I'll use desktop Linux distros as an example.
You are a novice and want email, web, and some light games. You install a fully configured distro and congratulations! You are a computer user with a functioning computer.
You are a user with moderate experience, you want email, web, gaming, office productivity, and image editing. You install a regular distro with some configuration to get what you want. Congratulations! You are an advanced user with a functioning computer that meets your needs.
You are a power user who wants all the above, plus just wants to tweak and customize his desktop. You install a regular desktop and start delving into conf file and installing new WMs. Congratulations! You're a power user with a functioning computer that makes you more efficient.
You're a developer who wants his rig set up exactly to his spec. You compile Gentoo with a custom kernel, and work directly from the CLI. Congratulations! You are a nerd and have acheived maximum efficiency for your needs. You may now boast your arrogant snobbery at every opportunity on/.
Windows is the same way. Every level of additional functionality you want requires more knowledge and more work. So unless the latest Linux distros come with a telepathic robot who knows what your needs are and automatically configures your system accordingly, I'm pretty sure the same statement applies there.
I'm not going to get into a big wanking fest over this. That you "suck at Windows admin" has nothing to do with Windows' difficulty. I have no formal training, no certs, but I've done enough research for every project that I've undertaken to make it successful. That's really all it takes, and that's all I mean by knowledge.
Not really. I think the amount of knowledge required depends on the complexity of the infrastructure you need. Deploying and maintaining an enterprise-level network is not a task for just anyone. Of course it requires a high degree of knowledge. whether Windows or Linux or anything else.
If you're running a small mom-and-pop shop, you've got Windows 2003 Small Business Server: comes with Exchange, and has wizards which walk you through every administrative step. You will have a functioning network and domain, and even a web presence if you so desire.
Even a step up from that, with Windows Server 2003, you can have an operational AD in like 30 minutes. Windows takes care of DNS, DHCP, authentication, and all the other configuration. But if you want to get in there and tweak it for your needs, you need to know what you're doing.
Beyond that, it's really a matter of what you want. AD, RIS, ISA, MOM, WSUS, MSCS, Terminal Services, IIS, MIIS, WSH, enterprise-level Exchange... these things take skill and knowledge (not to mention a mastery of TLAs...). Microsoft does try to sell their products as easier to use, which means people with sub-standard tech skills don't take the time to learn. This hurts MS's cred from both sides; F/OSS advocates think that Windows isn't configurable and scalable (it definitely is, if you know how), and other techies think that Microsoft's products are crap, because those sub-standard admins didn't do a good job.
My point is simply that it's a misconception that an MS environment cannot prosper. Microsoft gives you all the tools to build a solid network that's easy to manage after initial setup. Of course it requires knowledge and skill, but so does any other platform. And just like any other platform, the more knowledge you have, the better your system will be.
If windows is simple to administer then why does it takes up so much of my time?
Because you don't know what you're doing.
Sorry if that's a bit harsh for you, but it's likely true. I have seen countless Windows environments that were an absolute mess, held together by the proverbial gum and twine. "Admins" wasted thirty minutes setting up user accounts because they didn't have the process automated through GPOs or even scripts. They were constantly running around fixing everything because they didn't set it up right in the first place.
Now, on the other hand, I can tell you that the environments I've architected are almost flawless. From 10 users to 6000, I've designed and deployed systems of all types (small one site ADs, international AD domains, bank systems with 20+ application servers adherent to OTS standards, terminal services environments, etc.). I'm not going to lie and say I've never encountered a problem, but they've typically been because I messed something up, and once I corrected the issue, they've been running fine ever since.
If you properly plan an environment, anticipate future needs (administrative and end-user), and really know what you're doing, it doesn't matter what OS you use. I've worked with almost every Microsoft product/technology out there on every level (embedded to desktop to backend), and I've never been unsatisfied with any of them (this is from 2000 and more recent).
So yes, I concede that Windows has some security issues (sometimes blown out of proportion), and that taking six minutes to reboot once a month may be unacceptable in some situations, but I think-- nay, I KNOW-- that you can build a strong, solid infrastructure on Windows.
Yeah, I thought the same thing about Firefox: tabs? who the hell needs tabs?
Then I used for a week, and I can't even imagine life without tabbed browsing. Same with a tablet PC; I thought they were cool, but I couldn't see any practical use for one. Then a Gateway rep came out and demo'd one for my team, and I was sold. It's about more than just writing: with XP Tablet Edition (or whatever OSS counterpart you prefer), you can manipulate data in a ton of new ways. We're rolling them out to help transition to a more-paperless (or is that less-paper) environment: signatures and forms can be filed digitally for safer storage and better indexing.
Granted, I got the keyboard for my iPAQ, too, but now I definitely realize the potential of tablet PCs and PDA screenwriting.
Well, it does, actually. Not with WMA files, but with DRM'd WMA files. I'm pretty sure that in order for portable media players to be compatible with new DRM WMA files, they have to have a "media library" functionality that can keep track of whether the license for the file is valid. So a UMS player would not be compatible with Microsoft's PlaysForSure "standard".
USB Mass Storage Device = Geeks happy, but no.WMA compatibility, so it won't work with any legit online music vendor other than eMusic (that I know of). You've captured maybe 15% of the market, and left 85% pissed that their Yahoo! or Napster or Buy.com music does not work on your player.
PlaysForSure compatible device = Geeks unhappy, but who really gives a shit? You've opened your product to 90% of the market, and if it's really good enough, to 100%, since geeks will realize that you can still play MP3 files on the player without the DRM hassle.
Despite my usual support for Microsoft's products, I wholly agree that their tactics for muscling into the digital media market were unadmirable. Their DRM has pretty much become the de facto standard for next-gen media, and they are the only DRM competition to Apple's M4A standard.
Having said that, it is clear why companies like Creative, Samsung, and all the others have chosen to comply with their DRM scheme (no pun intended)... they can't afford to be incompatible with all the legit music download services.
Sometimes I think we have so many idiots and misfits in this world today, because all the regulations are preventing nature from adding some well needed chlorine into the gene pool, and letting them wipe themselves out.
This is exactly why we have so many idiots. Our society caters to the lowest common denominator. Our "leaders" are infinitely more willing to impose restrictions on the capable and the intelligent for the benefit of the... less capable and not-so-intelligent. Keeping the masses happy and distracted is far more important than allowing the exceptional ones be efficient and productive.
Kind of an OT tangent, but eh. BTW, I liked the beer can comment...
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. It didn't seem worth the effort. Normally, I would have, but the management at my condo hates me enough as it is.
The scariest part is that it works.
personal anecdote:
I'm getting a mattress delivered to my condo today (in Miami). Our management has a strict policy about reserving the elevator several days in advance, and will refuse any delivery not scheduled. So I was talking to the front desk security guard about it yesterday, and the exchange went something like this.
Me: ...I know you guys are ridiculously strict about your service elevator.
Him: Yeah, but don't you prefer it this way? I mean, we can keep track of anything coming in and out of the condos.
Me: Not really. Frankly, how is it any of your business what I'm bringing in and out of my condo?
Him: Well, it's for security, you know? Someone could easily bring in a bomb or something. If it happened to the World Trade Center, it could happen here. We've got families and... (all I remember is a faint buzzing noise from here on out)
Me: (incredulous stare with mouth agape)
... So this guy just told me that we have to schedule our service elevators to protect against terrorism. And he compared some random high-rise condo in Miami to the World Trade Center. Whether that's his personal view, or that of the management, I don't really know or care. I was absolutely dumbfounded that this would be the reason they cite.
And apparently it's okay to bring bombs into my condo building, as long as I schedule it beforehand.
You (and most of those arguing with you) don't seem to understand the fundamental problem with Guantanamo isn't whether the prisoners are being tortured. The problem is that people are being thrown in a detainment facility, with no trial, and no access to the outside world. THIS goes against the most basic principles of the United States. But even beyond this, some your statements are absurd.
These are non-uniformed combatants... They waged war against our country...
Um, what? What uniforms should they wear, since we effectively destroyed whatever government they had and plunged them into anarchy? Also, I know the Ministry of Truth makes it difficult, but try to remember that WE waged war on THEM.
You go on to detail how poorly the prisoners behave... that's because they're fucking prisoners! We invaded their country and took them captive, and because they fight back we label them all terrorists? We went into Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism (well, first it was WMD, then terrorism in general, then tyranny, but who's keeping track?)... it is likely that there were/are terrorists in Iraq (just as in other parts of the middle east, just as in other parts of the world), but we have taken the stance that ANYONE who defends themselves against the U.S. "liberators" is a terrorist. Wake up.
So perhaps a stint at Gitmo is like a mini-vacation. Perhaps they give all the prisoners manicures and Egyptian cotton sheets. The point is that we have summarily classified a group of people to having NO RIGHTS, simply because a few of them pose a threat. Demonize them and call them all enemy combatants or terrorists, and keep believing that your government is guilty of no wrong-doing...
Dude, you should switch to Dish Network, they offer that as well as service outages when it rains.
With a certain allusion to your handle, I must ask:
Why do you own a computer? If you like to get online and use email, there are internet appliances that are much cheaper, and they are optimized for web browsing and digital communication.
If you're editing digital video, there are professional editing stations that cost less than a cutting-edge PC that can perform the same functions, perhaps a little better.
If you're editing audio, or playing games, or performing calculations, or pretty much doing anything on a computer, there are specialized devices that can do them better. The sacrifice of a little quality/efficiency/performance is often acceptable for the sake of convenience and consolidation.
Yes, I would also like a phone that just has certain features, but I would also like a computer that's optimized for the specific task-set that I perform. However, that would not be cost-effective or realistic to demand.
This is such a pussy statement. "Our freedoms are being taken away every day, but now they're coming for our internets, so we're going to make a stand!" Why don't you make a stand in the real world, where it actually matters? Is it just because it's so much more convenient to do it from the comfort of your home, masked by (at least some) anonymity? If you truly believe in freedom, you should be out there protesting, rallying revolution, doing something other than whining when they come after your last bastion of freedom.
And so should I.
I appreciate your open-minded approach to this conversation.
I don't assert anything in absolutes; I think it's both arrogant and ignorant. So I believe there's just as much chance that a god/God does exist, as there is that we are the end result of a chemical fluke billions of years ago. And certainly, Aristotle's "Priority of Act" and "Immovable Mover" arguments make it difficult to deny the existence of something greater.
Because we will likely never know if that is the answer. I think it's dismissive to call it 'fabricating an alternative' (even if that turns out to be the case); it's more of a quest for the truth. Of course, on both sides of the debate are people who have already determined the "truth" for themselves, and this is a quest for being proven right.
The next part of your post is a little unclear to me, regarding the "complete species" thing. If you're asking why, for example, apes exist if humans evolved from them, the answer is simple: circumstance. Scientists believe apes diverged into two groups: jungle-dwellers and plains-dwellers. Those that lived in the jungle were suited for their environment, and did not drastically evolve. However, those that lived on the plains were not as suited for the environment, and adapted over time to bipedal motion, tool utilization, enhanced logic, and all the other stuff.
I certainly do agree with your last sentiment. Reading literary and philosophical works from throughout the last two millenia shows how little people really have changed.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'd like to reply to your post. The views expressed are mine, and may not conform to any predefined set of views.
The reason that I favor evolution to creationism is that it demands explanation. My understanding of creationism (admittedly very basic, but unbiased)-- and indeed, most religious perspectives-- is that there is no answer to be found. A higher power did whatever it did, and we can never know its nature, so let's just accept it. This is not the attitude that has brought forth all the technological advancement over the span of human history. Why would a higher power "create" us with such a disposition for logic, and then expect us to deny it?
Evolution keeps us looking for that "missing link", to further solidify the theory with each new example. It isn't satisfied to say, "well, life originated in water, and moved to land, and now here we are"; it constantly refines itself, seeks new possibilities, and attempts to prove or disprove those possibilities.
and wondering how that is actually going to cause a new species, rather than just a more specialised version within the same species
You should extend that idea over a few thousand or million iterations, and see what you end up with. Most evolution is attributed to mutations, so a drastic change may have occured in one generation, or in 500... a stray group of cells (a prehistoric cancer of sorts) may have had the ability to process air and extract oxygen, and eventually beget a set of lungs for the creature. The creatures emerge from water, and those with larger fins survive, as they have greater motility and can eat more food. Those fins gain strength, and can eventually propel them forward consistently, eventually begetting legs. And so on, and so on...
I concede that evolution may not be correct. Perhaps a creator just created everything to look like it could have evolved from other things. But given our species' great capacity for reason, our defining characteristic, doesn't it seem more logical to follow the path of evidence, rather than of belief?
AUGH! Pun overload!
The risk to end-users is that they might/will end up with a pirated version that may contain malware. At least, that's the Microsoft spin. I agree that this is a pretty pathetic move on Microsoft's part.
Or it prompts you to insert the installation media for a previous OS.
Get your facts straight before posting...
Okay....
1. There is no such thing as slavery? To say that someone is WILLING to accept $.40/hr to not STARVE TO DEATH is a little contrived. No, they are not physically taking something from these people, but they are condemning them to a pretty bleak fucking existence while they get rich off the "slave" labor.
2. a. My statement had nothing to do with the poor paying for shit they can't afford. My point was simply that that is how the rich get rich. By minimizing cost (the aforementioned "slave" labor), they are able to reap huge profits from whatever they're producing. There was no ethical argument with this; they charge what the market will bear, and apparently people think a $3 kninknack is worth $100. If the poor are living beyond their means, it's their fault for not being responsible.
b. What? These people are forced into these menial lives by a cyclical system of oppression. They are not given a chance at education or entrepreneurship. This isn't a job at fucking Burger King where you can tell the person to go get a real job if they're unhappy. They have been systematically deprived of the talent and ability to even escape sub-poverty, let alone engage in capitalistic indrustrialism.
I think you need to go take a look around outside your fucking suburb. Maybe then you'll have a better idea of what life is really like for countless millions of people.
That's probably because you're not rich enough.
All those workers who fill the factories to produce cheap consumer crap? Yeah, they're having their lives taken away just to eat a scrap of food. All the CEOs of companies (western and eastern, I'm not discriminating) that move production to the lowest bidder, and pay out $.40 USD an hour, and charge $100 for a product that cost $3 to make, those are the ones that get rich by taking from the poor.
And you can't really argue that value is relative, and the people making $.40/hour find that to be an acceptable reimbursement for their labor. Because they don't; they'd just rather not die.
Not a very serious note, actually, but I'll respond.
I doubt many people buy an OS as a holiday gift. But they do consider buying computers, and if that computer has a brand-new OS, then it likely influences their decision.
- Do you realize what this means?
- (Shocked looked) Hey! You're getting paid for that!
Well, you figure the post is like the driveshaft, and the car analogies are the flange defribillators... without them, your car may run, but you'll certainly be getting worse gas mileage.
/knows nothing about cars.
I used to hate the "tree falls" question, too... "Of course it makes a sound. Energy is released as sound waves, and dissipates through air and other matter before vibrating our inner ear membranes."
But now I figure it alludes to the idea that reality is an illusion, and exists only to the bounds of your senses; crudely equivalent to cogito, ergo sum: "I can only be sure of what I know and perceive." At least, that's what I tell myself to keep from cringing every time I hear it.
No, that's not at all what I said.
/.
I don't know a whole lot about Linux servers, so I'll use desktop Linux distros as an example.
You are a novice and want email, web, and some light games. You install a fully configured distro and congratulations! You are a computer user with a functioning computer.
You are a user with moderate experience, you want email, web, gaming, office productivity, and image editing. You install a regular distro with some configuration to get what you want. Congratulations! You are an advanced user with a functioning computer that meets your needs.
You are a power user who wants all the above, plus just wants to tweak and customize his desktop. You install a regular desktop and start delving into conf file and installing new WMs. Congratulations! You're a power user with a functioning computer that makes you more efficient.
You're a developer who wants his rig set up exactly to his spec. You compile Gentoo with a custom kernel, and work directly from the CLI. Congratulations! You are a nerd and have acheived maximum efficiency for your needs. You may now boast your arrogant snobbery at every opportunity on
Windows is the same way. Every level of additional functionality you want requires more knowledge and more work. So unless the latest Linux distros come with a telepathic robot who knows what your needs are and automatically configures your system accordingly, I'm pretty sure the same statement applies there.
I'm not going to get into a big wanking fest over this. That you "suck at Windows admin" has nothing to do with Windows' difficulty. I have no formal training, no certs, but I've done enough research for every project that I've undertaken to make it successful. That's really all it takes, and that's all I mean by knowledge.
Not really. I think the amount of knowledge required depends on the complexity of the infrastructure you need. Deploying and maintaining an enterprise-level network is not a task for just anyone. Of course it requires a high degree of knowledge. whether Windows or Linux or anything else.
If you're running a small mom-and-pop shop, you've got Windows 2003 Small Business Server: comes with Exchange, and has wizards which walk you through every administrative step. You will have a functioning network and domain, and even a web presence if you so desire.
Even a step up from that, with Windows Server 2003, you can have an operational AD in like 30 minutes. Windows takes care of DNS, DHCP, authentication, and all the other configuration. But if you want to get in there and tweak it for your needs, you need to know what you're doing.
Beyond that, it's really a matter of what you want. AD, RIS, ISA, MOM, WSUS, MSCS, Terminal Services, IIS, MIIS, WSH, enterprise-level Exchange... these things take skill and knowledge (not to mention a mastery of TLAs...). Microsoft does try to sell their products as easier to use, which means people with sub-standard tech skills don't take the time to learn. This hurts MS's cred from both sides; F/OSS advocates think that Windows isn't configurable and scalable (it definitely is, if you know how), and other techies think that Microsoft's products are crap, because those sub-standard admins didn't do a good job.
My point is simply that it's a misconception that an MS environment cannot prosper. Microsoft gives you all the tools to build a solid network that's easy to manage after initial setup. Of course it requires knowledge and skill, but so does any other platform. And just like any other platform, the more knowledge you have, the better your system will be.
If windows is simple to administer then why does it takes up so much of my time?
Because you don't know what you're doing.
Sorry if that's a bit harsh for you, but it's likely true. I have seen countless Windows environments that were an absolute mess, held together by the proverbial gum and twine. "Admins" wasted thirty minutes setting up user accounts because they didn't have the process automated through GPOs or even scripts. They were constantly running around fixing everything because they didn't set it up right in the first place.
Now, on the other hand, I can tell you that the environments I've architected are almost flawless. From 10 users to 6000, I've designed and deployed systems of all types (small one site ADs, international AD domains, bank systems with 20+ application servers adherent to OTS standards, terminal services environments, etc.). I'm not going to lie and say I've never encountered a problem, but they've typically been because I messed something up, and once I corrected the issue, they've been running fine ever since.
If you properly plan an environment, anticipate future needs (administrative and end-user), and really know what you're doing, it doesn't matter what OS you use. I've worked with almost every Microsoft product/technology out there on every level (embedded to desktop to backend), and I've never been unsatisfied with any of them (this is from 2000 and more recent).
So yes, I concede that Windows has some security issues (sometimes blown out of proportion), and that taking six minutes to reboot once a month may be unacceptable in some situations, but I think-- nay, I KNOW-- that you can build a strong, solid infrastructure on Windows.
Yeah, I thought the same thing about Firefox: tabs? who the hell needs tabs?
Then I used for a week, and I can't even imagine life without tabbed browsing. Same with a tablet PC; I thought they were cool, but I couldn't see any practical use for one. Then a Gateway rep came out and demo'd one for my team, and I was sold. It's about more than just writing: with XP Tablet Edition (or whatever OSS counterpart you prefer), you can manipulate data in a ton of new ways. We're rolling them out to help transition to a more-paperless (or is that less-paper) environment: signatures and forms can be filed digitally for safer storage and better indexing.
Granted, I got the keyboard for my iPAQ, too, but now I definitely realize the potential of tablet PCs and PDA screenwriting.
Well, it does, actually. Not with WMA files, but with DRM'd WMA files. I'm pretty sure that in order for portable media players to be compatible with new DRM WMA files, they have to have a "media library" functionality that can keep track of whether the license for the file is valid. So a UMS player would not be compatible with Microsoft's PlaysForSure "standard".
Maximizing cross-product synergies by thinking outside the box and using the new web2.0 paradigm
I'm not sure what you're selling, but I'll take 10,000.
The decision is actually very easy to make:
.WMA compatibility, so it won't work with any legit online music vendor other than eMusic (that I know of). You've captured maybe 15% of the market, and left 85% pissed that their Yahoo! or Napster or Buy.com music does not work on your player.
USB Mass Storage Device = Geeks happy, but no
PlaysForSure compatible device = Geeks unhappy, but who really gives a shit? You've opened your product to 90% of the market, and if it's really good enough, to 100%, since geeks will realize that you can still play MP3 files on the player without the DRM hassle.
Despite my usual support for Microsoft's products, I wholly agree that their tactics for muscling into the digital media market were unadmirable. Their DRM has pretty much become the de facto standard for next-gen media, and they are the only DRM competition to Apple's M4A standard.
Having said that, it is clear why companies like Creative, Samsung, and all the others have chosen to comply with their DRM scheme (no pun intended)... they can't afford to be incompatible with all the legit music download services.
Sometimes I think we have so many idiots and misfits in this world today, because all the regulations are preventing nature from adding some well needed chlorine into the gene pool, and letting them wipe themselves out.
This is exactly why we have so many idiots. Our society caters to the lowest common denominator. Our "leaders" are infinitely more willing to impose restrictions on the capable and the intelligent for the benefit of the... less capable and not-so-intelligent. Keeping the masses happy and distracted is far more important than allowing the exceptional ones be efficient and productive.
Kind of an OT tangent, but eh. BTW, I liked the beer can comment...