Dell didn't preinstall spyware. They are not going to recommend tools that randomly delete products off a users system. I can think of quite a few software products that install spyware and will not run without that spyware on the system.
So if Dell recommends a product that effectively destroys other applications on the system.. well it isn't a good situation for them.
<rant> I still recommend Dell systems. I maintain them for several businesses and I have yet run into a problem with support. Infact, I don't think I ever had to request a supervisor, level 2 support or anything of the like. I state the symptoms, state any diagnostics I did on the system, tell them my results and what appears to be faulty. There have been a few times they requested a few additional tests for me to do just to confirm, but afterwards, a part is shipped out usually next-day air and I install it (or a tech is sent if I cannot address the issue). I can't complain about that. Hehe.. over the past weekend I tried the same thing with Gateway.. yikes.
I had the problem pinpointed to a specific part of the motherboard.. their answer? Send it to a local service shop (gateway store), let the computer sit there for 7-10 days before they can look at it.. after they look at it.. it will sit there for another week while the part is shipped in and then sit in a queue until they can install the part and test it.. estimated turn around time? 3 weeks. I'll stick with Dell thank you very much. </rant>
I like FreeBSD as well. Perhaps it was simply due to the fact I moved to it from Red Hat and fell in love with the ports/packages system.
As far as the "BSD is dying" crap.. yah, it is really annoying. I use other sources for BSD news that are a bit more umm.. grown-up.
Needless to say, it seems like FreeBSD if anything is growing, not dying. With the very logical and well laid out file system, ports system, ipfw firewall and relatively easy upgrade process (make buildworld, make installworld, portupgrade) there is a lot to like about FreeBSD. Oh did I mention the kernel level security levels, jails and other tightly integrated security related tools? And to top it off, all of it is truly free -- no GPL limiting your distribution. What is there not to like again?:)
I think getting a standard desktop is a good thing. Not only will it bring more development to the standard platform (ability to write more code, revise it, analyze it for security issues, etc..) but perhaps a lot of duplication effort will be reduced and those developers can focus on innovative features, new areas of development, etc.
As a KDE user, I am slightly sad to see these corporations favor Gnome, but I would have to imagine that the features that I really like in KDE would find their way into the standard Gnome desktop (if that ends up being what happens) becuase lets face it -- the FOSS that is developed generally mimics the users of that particular FOSS.
It will be very interesting to see what type of inroads will be made in 2004.
It would be interesting to have applications simply running in the background. Ie, when you talk about a desktop paradigm, I see me sitting at my desk with an inbox where pretty much everything comes in. This would include emails, newsgroup messages, perhaps RSS feeds from various websites, instant messages, voicemails, etc.. pretty anything that can "enter" the computer from external means can wind up in the inbox.
So when I log into my computer, instead of seeing a handful of icons and a task bar, I am presented with an overview page -- an executive summary (I believe some have termed "dashboard") where at a glance, I can see what changed. Lets face it, when you go back to your desk, you tend to be aware of the changes and tend to those first.
Perhaps I can scroll through my Inbox -- the box is intelligent, so it can separate the contents and prioritize it based on my preferences -- heck it even can do its own analysis (filters) and place contents in other folders as necessary.
Along with the inbox, I have an area that contains my current projects.. each project is a folder (similar to what I would have on my desktop to store everything) and inside are my various objects that are associated with that project. Email correspondance, word processing documents, graphics, video, audio, whatever.. its all in the folder (with meta data so sorting based on various criteria is possible)... as I work in a project, applications only show the data for that project. So for example, if I decide to open up another project file, when I start navigating and manipulating objects, those will be the only ones visible (though when I go back to the other folder, it still remembers the state I left them in))
As with the desktop (office?) metaphor. . when a project is not considered active any longer, I can simply click on a "file" button/attribute and it will store it away in the folder heirarchy, searchable by various meta attributes -- date, log of changes, content, name, whatever..
I am not sure what is in your entire vision, but I think an important thing to remember is not to limit yourself to simply the "real world" object -- look at problems with real objects -- ie, my desk is a mess:) and provide solutions that only a digital representation can provide.
I'll be looking forward to see your progress on this interface (post it to/.:)
I haven't seen the full flick (just some still shots) but I think this does end up being some simple marketing strategy.
Microsoft can't simply ignore Linux. If they don't satisfy current customers curiousity with their own statements regarding the competition, the customers will go out and do their own research. Doing a head-to-head comparison doesn't work very well.. so what are they going to do? Tout that Windows is more secure? more reliable? more portable? more accessible? less bloated? cheaper?
MS has tried spewing FUD. They tried to prove that MS solutions are superior to others via paid studies. They forced OEMs and distribution channels to NOT pre-install Linux or even OS-free computer systems. There is loose evidence that Microsoft helps fund companies and other organizations that try to fight or otherwise dimish the impact FOSS has.
Those tactics didn't work. So now they are effectively trying to dismiss Linux.. poke fun at it, associate it with evil & lock in with IBM, etc..
I dont think it will work. Every day the FOSS movement grows stronger. More developers, more users, more contributors, more projects, more rollouts, larger announcements, new uses, etc.. Microsoft knows that the single biggest problem with software is it is easily duplicated (one of the reasons why they got into software in the first place).. However, that same trait that made Microsoft the huge corporation it now is will be, I believe, the same trait that will either completely change Microsoft as we know it or slowly destroy Microsoft as a company.
I think it is a bit optimistic.. lets face it.. its a.com biz plan that is trying to charge $10 for an email.. it will be around in 3 years? not a chance.
I agree that hardware tends to be an issue for most people. It is not uncommon for someone to use a piece of hardware that is simply not supported or at best, not very well (My Canon printer & scanner are like that)
I believe the issue ends up being what "Linux people" are responsible for this? It seems like the manufacturers should be the ones ultimately responsible. If they can't afford (or are unwilling) to develop drivers in house, then it would be great if they would work with the community by providing specifications and other documentation to help.
It is possible to build a "Linux compatible" computer system. There are OEMs that are developing drivers, providing specifications and generally are good to the open source community.
After all, not working right straight out of the box is a sure sign of a superior OS, right?
Hehe.. I remember back when I original used NT 4.0.. early 1997 I believe. I don't think it is very difficult to acknowledge that it is superior to Win95/Win3.11 given the fact that Microsoft is now using it as the basis of their current and future versions of Windows.
In anycase, hardware that ran just fine under Win95 would simply NOT work in WinNT. I was working at a company that wanted to migrate over for the security/stability and given the amount of hardware that wasn't supported, it was decided to do a slow migration (new systems and hardware compatible systems were NT and the remaining Win95 boxes were phased out).
My point? Just because an OEM does not write a driver for an OS does NOT mean it is either inferior or superior to an OS that the OEM wrote the driver for. Its this type of generalization ("oh it doesn't support XYZ card so the entire system must be inferior!") that really annoys me.
So lemme get this straight.. you grab a SuSE LiveEval CD and are able to boot up, use it, play a game, toy around with the interface and decide within two hours that Linux is not right for you and are able to boot back to your previous OS without any distruption.
I am surprised that Windows people don't find this simply amazing. Seriously. Lets say you were running umm.. Win98 or W2k.. and you want to try out WinXP on your computer.. There is no LiveEval version.. so you have to backup everything in your previous setup, install a copy of the new OS, sit through atleast an hour long OS install (if not longer) + download and find all of the apps to finish out the install (easily another hour if you have done it before) just to try it out..
Don't like it? Hehehe.. good luck getting back to your previous system.
In anycase, there are a lot of people that try out Linux and do not really seem to have a REASON to switch over. As a result (as in your case) there was absolutely NO effort to try and find out what differences there are between the two systems. You expected to boot into Linux and have essentially a Windows knock-off.
Needless to say, it takes much more than 2 hours to really understand a new system and start to really appreciate its unique features (and yes, a KDE based FOSS OS/distro has a LOT of great features) but for most people, there is a lack of acknowledgement on how long it truly took them to master their current OS due to the simple fact that MOST started out on some Windows variant and gathered knowledge over a long period of time.
Its a shame.. I always kept a clear distinction between "Hacker" -- a proficient computer user/programmer vs "Cracker" -- someone who using computers to gain illegal access into something.
However, atleast according to dictionary.com a hacker is now defined as both.. though the cracker definition defines them completely separate from a hacker (infact it goes indepth to distinguish the two) -- too bad it is contradictory to the hacker definition on the SAME SITE.. grr.. no wonder there is confusion.
Well isn't this akin to saying "I am going to do everything the same but expect different results"?
Seriously... allowing all users to run as admin/root/whatever has always been a bad idea. Putting up little warning signs in the interface is not going to stop malicious code from trashing a computer. Period.
Windows application developers need to wake up to the realization that these are multi-user, network connected systems and program accordingly. Don't assume heightened admin privileges, test your software in a regular user account extensively.
Sure there will be a handful of software titles out there that are simply not maintained that will ONLY work in a heightened mode. That is where the "Run as user" comes in handy. I've used it before.. it works fine for those few apps that REQUIRE admin privileges for their less than ideal behaviors.
If I recall correctly, Apple changed over to OS X and pushes a distinct admin/user configuration. The *nix variants do the same. Infact, the only modern operating systems that I can think of that seem not to follow this security principle are Microsoft's.
It is very true that this is an annoyance. However, one thing that it does is keep people aware of security. Not opening up unknown attachments, making sure they have firewalls/virus scanners/etc. I talk to people all the time about security related issues and they have interest in it becuase many of them have been personally affected by a virus or some other malicious code.
I'm glad that *most* of the big annoying scripts/viruses/whatever out there are fairly harmless. It would be extremely easy to set these viruses to have a payload to redistribute itself for a certain period of time and then start corrupting data, formatting drives, attempt to do a partial flash of the bios, etc..etc..
Unfortunately from many reports I have read, it seems like Microsoft does not care about security related issues that are reported privately to them. It seems like these issues have to be posted by some third party or a script kiddie has to use the exploit before Microsoft patches the hole.
Hopefully by hurting their bottom line, their #1 concern (i think?) -- the stockholders will take an interest and push MS toward being significantly more agile with regards to security issues. Their "trustworthy computing" crap-o-la simply doesn't seem to be cutting it.
If this requires something drastic like umm.. I dunno, actually making regular users underprivileged and causing annoyances in administrative accounts to keep people from using it as a regular account (ie enter the password every 15 minutes or something..) then so be it.
But umm.. err.. uhh.. what about the fact that Mac OS Classic is not supported anymore and no new software development is being done on it?
How about the fact that the benefits that you state make it impractical for real world use -- no remote administration means each server requires a tech to be onsite.
How about the fact that the system does not have protected memory and poorly written applications and scripts can bring the system crashing down?
How about the fact that due to its cooperative, non-pre-emptive model makes it ill-suited for running more than one application simultaneously (foreground app gets all the resources) and as a result, the only way to run a single server that can do what other server OS's do (ie run a web server, dns services, email services, etc..) is to build it as one huge monolithic application which ultimately adds extensive complexity due to the barebones nature of the OS (under the GUI of course.:)
Needless to say, while the facts you presented might be true (I have not tried to verify), it is largely irrelevant when your talking about an unsupported OS.
Why is it that Claria only supports Windows?!! Am I, a FreeBSD user not worthy of being advertised to? No Gator, no popups in Mozilla.. Well.. atleast I still have my spam email..
Since we are promoting products today, how about we talk about the iRiver iHP-120?
- Smaller than the Dell unit
- 10GB (iHP-100) and 20GB (iHP-120) models
- Same 16 hour rated battery life
- USB Hard drive interface (no MusicMatch crappiness)
- Line In/Out, Digital Optical In/Out
- High end recording features (direct to WAV, MP3)
- Integrated FM Tuner
- Supports MP3, WMA, ASF, WAV and OGG music files
- Cross platform compatibiltiy (anything that can see a USB hard drive will work with the unit)
- 3rd Party *nix development
- $399 MSRP... currently selling for ~$350
I dunno.. seems like this would be the unit Slashdot would be ga-ga over.. not the Dell unit.
I am not associated with iRiver in anyway... Just been researching to find a small (iPod size) unit that interfaces as a USB hard drive and has high end recording features (record my band for practices and during live performances) -- so far, this unit seems to be the best there is.
A high level security setting should not have any ports open. Personally, I think any install of a desktop should not have any ports open.
Sure, in businesses there might be a need for certain services (SSH in particular) but in those circumstances, installs are generally done with a script or other form of automation which would enable the necessary services.
Why is the concept of closing all unnecessary ports so difficult for people to grasp? A distro doesn't know what ports are necessary/unnecessary and as a result, should close them all. Plain and simple.
The answer is simple.. I found a platform which tends to work more like I want to work.. easy to automate repetitive tasks, very customizable and logical.
Sure, a year or two ago I wouldn't mind having Microsoft Office and perhaps the Flight Sim on my box, but its not available since Microsoft doesn't feel the need to be crossplatform saavy.
Whats interesting is all the major programs I use now on a daily basis ARE crossplatform.. Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac OS X.. you name it, there is probably a port.
So why would I want to be locked into a specific vendor for ALL of my computing software needs if the products they are offering simply don't suit my needs?
I like using OpenOffice, Mozilla, Apache, Python, PHP, etc.. and knowing I can load it up on virtually any computer I come across.. Not only will it load up on those computers, but unlike Microsoft's attempt at cross platform (ie Office for Mac vs Windows), it is virtually identical (except for perhaps the widgets).. No need to relearn items (or in the case of MS Office, finding out entire applications are removed or replaced by a completely different app)
So does that make me anti-Microsoft? Perhaps. I like to think about it more of "Pro-software that fits my computing style & needs". Sure I use to use Micorosoft (at one time, almost exclusively MS software) but have since found software that fits my needs better. If that makes me anti-Microsoft, then so be it.. but if someone claims I am irrational because I didn't pick the most popular software package, that is insane.
Like you, if Microsoft provided software that fit my needs and they changed their business practices to be more aligned with what I believe are ethical guidelines for businesses, then I would have no qualms about considering using them in the future.
Mouthing off at Segway? Bah humbug! He was +5 Insightful. Quick wrap -- Segway execs invite Jobs to see their new innovative product. Instead of sitting back and letting Jobs provide insight into his experience in successfully launching innovative products, they tried to do a canned marketing presentation. If I recall correctly, Jobs claimed to have stayed up the night before thinking about all aspects of the Segway... Seems like the Segway guys (at that time) had a lot to learn about working with the titans.:)
The cube -- ok.. so there was a failed product. Big deal. Get over it. Every company has them.. given the level of innovation that Apple churns out, its surprising they don't have MORE failed products.
Reports are sticky. I have used some web-based apps that use LaTeX templates to generate reports.. the server side makes it a PDF/PS file and pushes it to the client to print. However, still not as nice as an all inclusive package.
There are a few options.. Kexi is a KOffice database front end.. it appears to do tables, forms, reports, scripting, etc.. looks similar to Access. The first release, however, won't be out for one more month (atleast according to the website).
TheKompany has a commercial product called Rekall that appears to be similar..
Perhaps Adabas (comes with StarOffice) might be an option as well.. though I am not sure of its capabilities.
Just an FYI.... There is KnoppMyth which is Knoppix with the necessary MythTV software...
I have not used it, but it appears to be fairly straight forward to install (the ISO comes with an install text..)
Granted, not quite to the point of popping in a CD and watching it auto self configure, but should be an easier install compared to what you described.:)
I have to agree with you. I think this next OS will be "the best OS Microsoft has ever released".. it will be "more secure", "more scalable", "more productive" *insert previously used MS marketing claim here.
So what will be the kicker? Perhaps they will push a subscription based model? You can only rent the software, no buying allowed?
Perhaps with Bill & Co selling stock (according to Yahoo, it looks like Bill dumped ~$309 million worth of MSFT in August) with Bill's plans of being completely sold out by 2006 (or 2008? forgot which..) he is planning on "doing the right thing" and releasing a solid, secure operating system.
Or perhaps the feeling is that quite frankly, the PC in its current form is well umm.. too overly complex and cumbersome. Perhaps with things like tablet PC, wireless broadband, etc, there will be a shift toward application specific embedded platforms and desktop PCs as they exist now are on their way out (I doubt by 2008.. but I really don't see these kludgely things around in 2020+..)
Slashdot Mirror
Dell didn't preinstall spyware. They are not going to recommend tools that randomly delete products off a users system. I can think of quite a few software products that install spyware and will not run without that spyware on the system.
.. well it isn't a good situation for them.
.. over the past weekend I tried the same thing with Gateway .. yikes.
.. their answer? Send it to a local service shop (gateway store), let the computer sit there for 7-10 days before they can look at it.. after they look at it .. it will sit there for another week while the part is shipped in and then sit in a queue until they can install the part and test it .. estimated turn around time? 3 weeks. I'll stick with Dell thank you very much.
So if Dell recommends a product that effectively destroys other applications on the system
<rant>
I still recommend Dell systems. I maintain them for several businesses and I have yet run into a problem with support. Infact, I don't think I ever had to request a supervisor, level 2 support or anything of the like. I state the symptoms, state any diagnostics I did on the system, tell them my results and what appears to be faulty. There have been a few times they requested a few additional tests for me to do just to confirm, but afterwards, a part is shipped out usually next-day air and I install it (or a tech is sent if I cannot address the issue). I can't complain about that. Hehe
I had the problem pinpointed to a specific part of the motherboard
</rant>
*whoooooosh!*
I like FreeBSD as well. Perhaps it was simply due to the fact I moved to it from Red Hat and fell in love with the ports/packages system.
.. yah, it is really annoying. I use other sources for BSD news that are a bit more umm.. grown-up.
:)
As far as the "BSD is dying" crap
Needless to say, it seems like FreeBSD if anything is growing, not dying. With the very logical and well laid out file system, ports system, ipfw firewall and relatively easy upgrade process (make buildworld, make installworld, portupgrade) there is a lot to like about FreeBSD. Oh did I mention the kernel level security levels, jails and other tightly integrated security related tools? And to top it off, all of it is truly free -- no GPL limiting your distribution. What is there not to like again?
*shrug* when will he learn?? He needs to release it NOW to cash in on the holiday buying rush. :)
I think getting a standard desktop is a good thing. Not only will it bring more development to the standard platform (ability to write more code, revise it, analyze it for security issues, etc..) but perhaps a lot of duplication effort will be reduced and those developers can focus on innovative features, new areas of development, etc.
As a KDE user, I am slightly sad to see these corporations favor Gnome, but I would have to imagine that the features that I really like in KDE would find their way into the standard Gnome desktop (if that ends up being what happens) becuase lets face it -- the FOSS that is developed generally mimics the users of that particular FOSS.
It will be very interesting to see what type of inroads will be made in 2004.
It would be interesting to have applications simply running in the background. Ie, when you talk about a desktop paradigm, I see me sitting at my desk with an inbox where pretty much everything comes in. This would include emails, newsgroup messages, perhaps RSS feeds from various websites, instant messages, voicemails, etc.. pretty anything that can "enter" the computer from external means can wind up in the inbox.
... as I work in a project, applications only show the data for that project. So for example, if I decide to open up another project file, when I start navigating and manipulating objects, those will be the only ones visible (though when I go back to the other folder, it still remembers the state I left them in))
:) and provide solutions that only a digital representation can provide.
/. :)
So when I log into my computer, instead of seeing a handful of icons and a task bar, I am presented with an overview page -- an executive summary (I believe some have termed "dashboard") where at a glance, I can see what changed. Lets face it, when you go back to your desk, you tend to be aware of the changes and tend to those first.
Perhaps I can scroll through my Inbox -- the box is intelligent, so it can separate the contents and prioritize it based on my preferences -- heck it even can do its own analysis (filters) and place contents in other folders as necessary.
Along with the inbox, I have an area that contains my current projects.. each project is a folder (similar to what I would have on my desktop to store everything) and inside are my various objects that are associated with that project. Email correspondance, word processing documents, graphics, video, audio, whatever.. its all in the folder (with meta data so sorting based on various criteria is possible)
As with the desktop (office?) metaphor. . when a project is not considered active any longer, I can simply click on a "file" button/attribute and it will store it away in the folder heirarchy, searchable by various meta attributes -- date, log of changes, content, name, whatever..
I am not sure what is in your entire vision, but I think an important thing to remember is not to limit yourself to simply the "real world" object -- look at problems with real objects -- ie, my desk is a mess
I'll be looking forward to see your progress on this interface (post it to
I haven't seen the full flick (just some still shots) but I think this does end up being some simple marketing strategy.
.. poke fun at it, associate it with evil & lock in with IBM, etc..
;)
Microsoft can't simply ignore Linux. If they don't satisfy current customers curiousity with their own statements regarding the competition, the customers will go out and do their own research. Doing a head-to-head comparison doesn't work very well.. so what are they going to do? Tout that Windows is more secure? more reliable? more portable? more accessible? less bloated? cheaper?
MS has tried spewing FUD. They tried to prove that MS solutions are superior to others via paid studies. They forced OEMs and distribution channels to NOT pre-install Linux or even OS-free computer systems. There is loose evidence that Microsoft helps fund companies and other organizations that try to fight or otherwise dimish the impact FOSS has.
Those tactics didn't work. So now they are effectively trying to dismiss Linux
I dont think it will work. Every day the FOSS movement grows stronger. More developers, more users, more contributors, more projects, more rollouts, larger announcements, new uses, etc.. Microsoft knows that the single biggest problem with software is it is easily duplicated (one of the reasons why they got into software in the first place).. However, that same trait that made Microsoft the huge corporation it now is will be, I believe, the same trait that will either completely change Microsoft as we know it or slowly destroy Microsoft as a company.
In anycase, its fun to sit back and watch.
I think it is a bit optimistic .. lets face it .. its a .com biz plan that is trying to charge $10 for an email.. it will be around in 3 years? not a chance.
I agree that hardware tends to be an issue for most people. It is not uncommon for someone to use a piece of hardware that is simply not supported or at best, not very well (My Canon printer & scanner are like that)
.. early 1997 I believe. I don't think it is very difficult to acknowledge that it is superior to Win95/Win3.11 given the fact that Microsoft is now using it as the basis of their current and future versions of Windows.
I believe the issue ends up being what "Linux people" are responsible for this? It seems like the manufacturers should be the ones ultimately responsible. If they can't afford (or are unwilling) to develop drivers in house, then it would be great if they would work with the community by providing specifications and other documentation to help.
It is possible to build a "Linux compatible" computer system. There are OEMs that are developing drivers, providing specifications and generally are good to the open source community.
After all, not working right straight out of the box is a sure sign of a superior OS, right?
Hehe.. I remember back when I original used NT 4.0
In anycase, hardware that ran just fine under Win95 would simply NOT work in WinNT. I was working at a company that wanted to migrate over for the security/stability and given the amount of hardware that wasn't supported, it was decided to do a slow migration (new systems and hardware compatible systems were NT and the remaining Win95 boxes were phased out).
My point? Just because an OEM does not write a driver for an OS does NOT mean it is either inferior or superior to an OS that the OEM wrote the driver for. Its this type of generalization ("oh it doesn't support XYZ card so the entire system must be inferior!") that really annoys me.
.. I must respond ........ :)
.. and you want to try out WinXP on your computer.. There is no LiveEval version .. so you have to backup everything in your previous setup, install a copy of the new OS, sit through atleast an hour long OS install (if not longer) + download and find all of the apps to finish out the install (easily another hour if you have done it before) just to try it out..
So lemme get this straight.. you grab a SuSE LiveEval CD and are able to boot up, use it, play a game, toy around with the interface and decide within two hours that Linux is not right for you and are able to boot back to your previous OS without any distruption.
I am surprised that Windows people don't find this simply amazing. Seriously. Lets say you were running umm.. Win98 or W2k
Don't like it? Hehehe.. good luck getting back to your previous system.
In anycase, there are a lot of people that try out Linux and do not really seem to have a REASON to switch over. As a result (as in your case) there was absolutely NO effort to try and find out what differences there are between the two systems. You expected to boot into Linux and have essentially a Windows knock-off.
Needless to say, it takes much more than 2 hours to really understand a new system and start to really appreciate its unique features (and yes, a KDE based FOSS OS/distro has a LOT of great features) but for most people, there is a lack of acknowledgement on how long it truly took them to master their current OS due to the simple fact that MOST started out on some Windows variant and gathered knowledge over a long period of time.
Its a shame .. I always kept a clear distinction between "Hacker" -- a proficient computer user/programmer vs "Cracker" -- someone who using computers to gain illegal access into something.
However, atleast according to dictionary.com a hacker is now defined as both.. though the cracker definition defines them completely separate from a hacker (infact it goes indepth to distinguish the two) -- too bad it is contradictory to the hacker definition on the SAME SITE.. grr.. no wonder there is confusion.
Well isn't this akin to saying "I am going to do everything the same but expect different results"? Seriously... allowing all users to run as admin/root/whatever has always been a bad idea. Putting up little warning signs in the interface is not going to stop malicious code from trashing a computer. Period. Windows application developers need to wake up to the realization that these are multi-user, network connected systems and program accordingly. Don't assume heightened admin privileges, test your software in a regular user account extensively. Sure there will be a handful of software titles out there that are simply not maintained that will ONLY work in a heightened mode. That is where the "Run as user" comes in handy. I've used it before.. it works fine for those few apps that REQUIRE admin privileges for their less than ideal behaviors. If I recall correctly, Apple changed over to OS X and pushes a distinct admin/user configuration. The *nix variants do the same. Infact, the only modern operating systems that I can think of that seem not to follow this security principle are Microsoft's.
It is very true that this is an annoyance. However, one thing that it does is keep people aware of security. Not opening up unknown attachments, making sure they have firewalls/virus scanners/etc. I talk to people all the time about security related issues and they have interest in it becuase many of them have been personally affected by a virus or some other malicious code.
I'm glad that *most* of the big annoying scripts/viruses/whatever out there are fairly harmless. It would be extremely easy to set these viruses to have a payload to redistribute itself for a certain period of time and then start corrupting data, formatting drives, attempt to do a partial flash of the bios, etc..etc..
Unfortunately from many reports I have read, it seems like Microsoft does not care about security related issues that are reported privately to them. It seems like these issues have to be posted by some third party or a script kiddie has to use the exploit before Microsoft patches the hole.
Hopefully by hurting their bottom line, their #1 concern (i think?) -- the stockholders will take an interest and push MS toward being significantly more agile with regards to security issues. Their "trustworthy computing" crap-o-la simply doesn't seem to be cutting it.
If this requires something drastic like umm.. I dunno, actually making regular users underprivileged and causing annoyances in administrative accounts to keep people from using it as a regular account (ie enter the password every 15 minutes or something..) then so be it.
But umm.. err .. uhh.. what about the fact that Mac OS Classic is not supported anymore and no new software development is being done on it?
:)
How about the fact that the benefits that you state make it impractical for real world use -- no remote administration means each server requires a tech to be onsite.
How about the fact that the system does not have protected memory and poorly written applications and scripts can bring the system crashing down?
How about the fact that due to its cooperative, non-pre-emptive model makes it ill-suited for running more than one application simultaneously (foreground app gets all the resources) and as a result, the only way to run a single server that can do what other server OS's do (ie run a web server, dns services, email services, etc..) is to build it as one huge monolithic application which ultimately adds extensive complexity due to the barebones nature of the OS (under the GUI of course.
Needless to say, while the facts you presented might be true (I have not tried to verify), it is largely irrelevant when your talking about an unsupported OS.
Why is it that Claria only supports Windows?!! Am I, a FreeBSD user not worthy of being advertised to? No Gator, no popups in Mozilla .. Well .. atleast I still have my spam email..
Since we are promoting products today, how about we talk about the iRiver iHP-120?
... currently selling for ~$350
... Just been researching to find a small (iPod size) unit that interfaces as a USB hard drive and has high end recording features (record my band for practices and during live performances) -- so far, this unit seems to be the best there is.
- Smaller than the Dell unit
- 10GB (iHP-100) and 20GB (iHP-120) models
- Same 16 hour rated battery life
- USB Hard drive interface (no MusicMatch crappiness)
- Line In/Out, Digital Optical In/Out
- High end recording features (direct to WAV, MP3)
- Integrated FM Tuner
- Supports MP3, WMA, ASF, WAV and OGG music files
- Cross platform compatibiltiy (anything that can see a USB hard drive will work with the unit)
- 3rd Party *nix development
- $399 MSRP
I dunno.. seems like this would be the unit Slashdot would be ga-ga over.. not the Dell unit.
I am not associated with iRiver in anyway
A high level security setting should not have any ports open. Personally, I think any install of a desktop should not have any ports open.
Sure, in businesses there might be a need for certain services (SSH in particular) but in those circumstances, installs are generally done with a script or other form of automation which would enable the necessary services.
Why is the concept of closing all unnecessary ports so difficult for people to grasp? A distro doesn't know what ports are necessary/unnecessary and as a result, should close them all. Plain and simple.
The answer is simple .. I found a platform which tends to work more like I want to work .. easy to automate repetitive tasks, very customizable and logical.
.. you name it, there is probably a port.
.. Not only will it load up on those computers, but unlike Microsoft's attempt at cross platform (ie Office for Mac vs Windows), it is virtually identical (except for perhaps the widgets).. No need to relearn items (or in the case of MS Office, finding out entire applications are removed or replaced by a completely different app)
.. but if someone claims I am irrational because I didn't pick the most popular software package, that is insane.
Sure, a year or two ago I wouldn't mind having Microsoft Office and perhaps the Flight Sim on my box, but its not available since Microsoft doesn't feel the need to be crossplatform saavy.
Whats interesting is all the major programs I use now on a daily basis ARE crossplatform.. Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac OS X
So why would I want to be locked into a specific vendor for ALL of my computing software needs if the products they are offering simply don't suit my needs?
I like using OpenOffice, Mozilla, Apache, Python, PHP, etc.. and knowing I can load it up on virtually any computer I come across
So does that make me anti-Microsoft? Perhaps. I like to think about it more of "Pro-software that fits my computing style & needs". Sure I use to use Micorosoft (at one time, almost exclusively MS software) but have since found software that fits my needs better. If that makes me anti-Microsoft, then so be it
Like you, if Microsoft provided software that fit my needs and they changed their business practices to be more aligned with what I believe are ethical guidelines for businesses, then I would have no qualms about considering using them in the future.
Mouthing off at Segway? Bah humbug! He was +5 Insightful. Quick wrap -- Segway execs invite Jobs to see their new innovative product. Instead of sitting back and letting Jobs provide insight into his experience in successfully launching innovative products, they tried to do a canned marketing presentation. If I recall correctly, Jobs claimed to have stayed up the night before thinking about all aspects of the Segway... Seems like the Segway guys (at that time) had a lot to learn about working with the titans. :)
.. so there was a failed product. Big deal. Get over it. Every company has them .. given the level of innovation that Apple churns out, its surprising they don't have MORE failed products.
The cube -- ok
Reports are sticky. I have used some web-based apps that use LaTeX templates to generate reports .. the server side makes it a PDF/PS file and pushes it to the client to print. However, still not as nice as an all inclusive package.
.. Kexi is a KOffice database front end .. it appears to do tables, forms, reports, scripting, etc.. looks similar to Access. The first release, however, won't be out for one more month (atleast according to the website).
.. though I am not sure of its capabilities.
There are a few options
TheKompany has a commercial product called Rekall that appears to be similar..
Perhaps Adabas (comes with StarOffice) might be an option as well
Football.. crazy strange ad about computers .. ad not showing computer ... ad with lots of symbolism ..
Is this IBM's way of celebrating (slightly early) the 20th anniversary of Apple's 1984 commercial?
Hopefully they follow this up with more TV & Print spots that elaborate as to WHY Linux is better...
Just an FYI .... There is KnoppMyth which is Knoppix with the necessary MythTV software...
I have not used it, but it appears to be fairly straight forward to install (the ISO comes with an install text..)
Granted, not quite to the point of popping in a CD and watching it auto self configure, but should be an easier install compared to what you described. :)
I have to agree with you. I think this next OS will be "the best OS Microsoft has ever released" .. it will be "more secure", "more scalable", "more productive" *insert previously used MS marketing claim here.
.. but I really don't see these kludgely things around in 2020+..)
So what will be the kicker? Perhaps they will push a subscription based model? You can only rent the software, no buying allowed?
Perhaps with Bill & Co selling stock (according to Yahoo, it looks like Bill dumped ~$309 million worth of MSFT in August) with Bill's plans of being completely sold out by 2006 (or 2008? forgot which..) he is planning on "doing the right thing" and releasing a solid, secure operating system.
Or perhaps the feeling is that quite frankly, the PC in its current form is well umm.. too overly complex and cumbersome. Perhaps with things like tablet PC, wireless broadband, etc, there will be a shift toward application specific embedded platforms and desktop PCs as they exist now are on their way out (I doubt by 2008
And he was right. That article was written in 1998 (!) and Windows 2k and 2k3 are much more stable.
Well I guess it depends on perspective. More reliable than NT? Sure.. More reliable than Unix? I think not.
nah .. just
:)
"make install clean"
its easier that way.