Sorry to tell you, but I am. One thing I will admit though, is that Windows XP is one giant memory leak. I can't have an uptime of one week without the system becaming actually (as opposed to virtually) useless for any purpose.
The reality is that Windows gets "fixed" by being reinstalled
I use Windows and haven't reinstalled it since I installed Windows XP. No need to reimage the system every six months if you know what you're doing.
For someone with a decent knowledge of the platform a complete reinstall simply isn't needed. However, more to the point I was making, for minor bugs and quirks, (some) things can usually get fixed a lot easier in windows than in linux. Thus the "desktop ready" thing.
And if you by random breakage means that the machine has gotten infected with virus/spyware or just gets hacked, a complete reinstall should be standard procedure anyway, as you don't know what is hijacked and not and what's to be trusted.
Kubuntu is in my opinion ready-for-the-desktop as Windows ever was, except that you better take care to use supported hardware
You got a point there that I'm not refuting. And as I've said in a another post in this thread, it's not really fair to blame linux itself for the lack of vendors supporting it.
However, for anything to "be ready for the desktop", you need proper hardware support. The fewest of people actually check if the hardware they buy are actually supported by the OS. It is expected that whatever hardware you buy actually works.
That may be a stupid assumption, and believe me, I know. I bought a Creative Zen Jukebox and thought that it'd be a USB mass-storage unit, no problems. But I couldn't for the love of god get my fancy new mp3-player working in linux.
Complete nonsense. Windows power users can fix a broken Windows all right... by reinstalling it
Yes and no. See my other comment and tell me running to vendor supplied setup.exe-files is anywhere near what I had to do to get my stuff working in linux.
And tell me most users wouldn't be able to reinstall their drivers by running a simple vendor supplied executable.
If the shit hits the fan, then the shit hits the fan and that's true for any OS out there. Ever tried to fix a broken Windows install? It sure isn't something your average users wouls be able to manage.
Well, I dont know about you, but I believe most people are able to download drivers from the vendor, run setup.exe and reboot.
Compare that to my WLAN-case which involved custom compiling a generic Atmel-based WLAN-chipset kernel-module, modifying the source for the correct device ID, which I had to guess and making sure that it all played nice and correctly with kernel trough a modprobe.conf or whatever.
Compare that to my case of getting video-only TV-out, which involved reconfigureing X manually (not a very hard thing to do, but find any average user who'll be able to do just that) to support 2 different sessions, making custom mplayer launch scripts which launches on the secondary session, resizing the video to a pre-set resolution, and then having the video-adapter resizing that again before it's sent out to my TV. Copmpare that to ticking a box which says "enable overlay based TV-out" without any unneccasary resizing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying linux is crap, but it takes a lot more love to get stuff working. Yes, I know it's not entirely fair blaming the OS for lack of vendor support, but you get my point.
And to most users this is in any case utterly irellevant. They want something that works, and don't care why it doesn't when it doesn't.
"Year of the Linux desktop" or whatever. Isn't that a dupe and troll in itself? It's been repeated over and over again, and yet never happened.
Honestly, I don't think Linux (as it is now anyway) is ready for the desktop. Why? Sure, you got aptitude and lot of neat stuff. Gnome may be bloated as hell, but it looks good, and that's what most consumers want.
You got lots of good stuff, but when your average linux-distro starts to break down, when stuff doesn't work automagicly, when hardware detetction fails and so on... Most users (and by most users I also mean powerusers) will have a really hard time fixing stuff, if they even manage to fix it at all. Not all of us are geeks who grew up with a keyboard.
Plus, I don't really care if linux hits the mainstream or not. I use what works for me, I'll let others use what works for them. To me, open standards are a lot more important than whatever OS people are running to get their work done.
Vista will implement DRM deep into the OS and when apps start "taking advantage" of that, you will notice that it's not negligible any more.
My reason for staying away from Vosta, hardware requirements aside, is DRM and DRM only. Because there are a few neat features under the hood I'd really like to have. For instance the vector-graphics GPU-accelerated desktop.
Ok. As a C#-developer, I call bullshit on your entire story.
Fine. You had a crap solution which caused you a lot of troubles. I'm not doubting that. But what you are saying is boiling down to "I don't know how to use.NET at all, I'm not willing to look up documentation, so whatever mischief and framework abuse I'm the sole cause of, I'll blame on the framework".
Really..NET was designed to work with internet-standards to a certain degree. To a certain degree that means that you can channel any remoting over http, syncroneously or asyncroneously. However, it seems you aren't even close to knowing what sort of tools the framework provides and decides to blame that on the framework.
You know what? I'm no really any good in basic C. I know there are some network/tcp-ip includes, but I wouldn't know how to use them. If I chose to implement all that myself because of that, should I blame myself for being inept at C or complain that C doesn't do what I want? Hopefully you get my point.
So your issue isn't with.NET itself, it's with your utter lack of knowledge on how to take advantage of it.
At least where I live (Norway), short messages and mobile communication (ie without any of those non-verbal cues) seems to be generate a lot more income to the telcos from females than from males.
And, as you know, copyright will either be abondoned entirely due to total civil disobidience or it will only be extended even further.
The part about "benfiting society" was forgotten the very instant copyright holders realized there were more money to be made by bribing politicians. This is definitely not going to change anytime soon.
What I'd like to see, is the copyright cartels or congress, whoever, having the balls to officially legislate the public domain away for good. If the public domain was actually removed from existance, I'd like to see people justify copyright as a whole.
What I am saying is that where I live, if there is no technical reason for why it shouldn't be done (for instance security risks), companies are not alloved to impose restrictions.
As far as I can see, apart from valid technical concerns, the only reason a company would impose restrictions on how you should use their product would be to hinder competition. Where I live non-competitive practices are forbidden by law and the state will impose fines on companies that are found guilty, and believe it or not, these laws are actually being used.
So valid techincal reasons excluded, why should a company be allowed to impose restrioctions on products they sell? As far as I can see, there isn't one valid reason.
If you do you find this highly diagreeable in any way, I'd like to know why.
Why is it okay for a car manufacturer to specify which car models his air filter fits?
I'll admit up front that I have no idea what you are talking about, since I don't have a licence and I don't have a car. However, if the filter fits and it doesn't involve security risks, they can't say a god damned thing.
At least not where I live, and we have sane consumer-laws. I guess that might be a strange concept to people living in the US.
If they give it to you under the clear understanding that you only install it on their hardware and you BUY it and then do otherwise you're in breach of contract
So... If you saw popcorn for sale in a supermarket marked "only to be salted by expensive-brand-salt(tm)" and you buy it, what sort of offence are you commiting if you use generic cheap salt?
It's the same thing, except for with software and technology all sanity and reason automaticly seems to go out the window. They are selling you a product. You are not agreeing to anything, especially no restrictions.
If they want you to have it only under certain condifiotns, then don't sell it in places and ways that makes them lose control. Make people who buy it sign a contract stating the terms of use, and no, a shrink-wrap licence is not a contract.
Ofcourse any sane software company realizes that this would be impossible while maintaing a decent amount of sales for their products.
If you want control then don't put it out in the public. If it's in the public, it's a product everyone can buy (no contract involved) and thus should abide ordinary rules regarding products and use. Which means that the producer gets to say jack shit about how people use their product. How hard is that to get?
Why does the fact that the product is software has anything to do with the restrictions applied to it, compared to any other product for sale? It's an artificial construct that it requires or deserves special treatment. The software itself is protected by copyright, and IMO that's all the protection it needs.
And really, what are you railing at here? The fucking name?... Jesus, dude. Get over it.
Oh well. I think it's stupid, so be it.
But I think you just proved my point. That it's because of the whole "blogosphere" thing that it's buzzwordworhty, and nothing else.
Me? I'm oldschool. I prefer to call a showel a showel, not a dirtcaster. But again, that's just me.
So what you are saying is that applying the well known thing RSS to something as basic as putting audio-files online is revolutionary?
Jeez. I better start to refer to my automatic torrents-downloads as torrentcasting! Oh. One for audio, one for movies and one for tvshows. Showcasting! Now that'd be a showoff in buzzwordism wouldn't it? And my news-checking? Nucasting! Awesome. I'm on a roll here!
But I guess the fact that it's outside the "blogosphere" means that it ain't buzzword worthy.
So people use RSS to do something traditional. Now we need a new word? Would you care to fiber-opt me the new'n'hot buzzword worthy list of other revolutionary achievements?
I don't see the link to the RSS feed anywhere on that page. No RSS = not a podcast.
And that RSS feed would make just how much of a difference, if I may ask?
I refer you to Maddox's "If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide". It's a good read for all you people who seem to think all these blogs in the blogosphere podcasting Filegate-pundits actually is something more than stupid words for old things.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to tell you, but I am. One thing I will admit though, is that Windows XP is one giant memory leak. I can't have an uptime of one week without the system becaming actually (as opposed to virtually) useless for any purpose.
And that is on a system with 1GB of memory...
The reality is that Windows gets "fixed" by being reinstalled
I use Windows and haven't reinstalled it since I installed Windows XP. No need to reimage the system every six months if you know what you're doing.
For someone with a decent knowledge of the platform a complete reinstall simply isn't needed. However, more to the point I was making, for minor bugs and quirks, (some) things can usually get fixed a lot easier in windows than in linux. Thus the "desktop ready" thing.
And if you by random breakage means that the machine has gotten infected with virus/spyware or just gets hacked, a complete reinstall should be standard procedure anyway, as you don't know what is hijacked and not and what's to be trusted.
Kubuntu is in my opinion ready-for-the-desktop as Windows ever was, except that you better take care to use supported hardware
You got a point there that I'm not refuting. And as I've said in a another post in this thread, it's not really fair to blame linux itself for the lack of vendors supporting it.
However, for anything to "be ready for the desktop", you need proper hardware support. The fewest of people actually check if the hardware they buy are actually supported by the OS. It is expected that whatever hardware you buy actually works.
That may be a stupid assumption, and believe me, I know. I bought a Creative Zen Jukebox and thought that it'd be a USB mass-storage unit, no problems. But I couldn't for the love of god get my fancy new mp3-player working in linux.
Complete nonsense. Windows power users can fix a broken Windows all right... by reinstalling it
Yes and no. See my other comment and tell me running to vendor supplied setup.exe-files is anywhere near what I had to do to get my stuff working in linux.
And tell me most users wouldn't be able to reinstall their drivers by running a simple vendor supplied executable.
If the shit hits the fan, then the shit hits the fan and that's true for any OS out there. Ever tried to fix a broken Windows install? It sure isn't something your average users wouls be able to manage.
Well, I dont know about you, but I believe most people are able to download drivers from the vendor, run setup.exe and reboot.
Compare that to my WLAN-case which involved custom compiling a generic Atmel-based WLAN-chipset kernel-module, modifying the source for the correct device ID, which I had to guess and making sure that it all played nice and correctly with kernel trough a modprobe.conf or whatever.
Compare that to my case of getting video-only TV-out, which involved reconfigureing X manually (not a very hard thing to do, but find any average user who'll be able to do just that) to support 2 different sessions, making custom mplayer launch scripts which launches on the secondary session, resizing the video to a pre-set resolution, and then having the video-adapter resizing that again before it's sent out to my TV. Copmpare that to ticking a box which says "enable overlay based TV-out" without any unneccasary resizing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying linux is crap, but it takes a lot more love to get stuff working. Yes, I know it's not entirely fair blaming the OS for lack of vendor support, but you get my point. And to most users this is in any case utterly irellevant. They want something that works, and don't care why it doesn't when it doesn't.
"Year of the Linux desktop" or whatever. Isn't that a dupe and troll in itself? It's been repeated over and over again, and yet never happened.
Honestly, I don't think Linux (as it is now anyway) is ready for the desktop. Why? Sure, you got aptitude and lot of neat stuff. Gnome may be bloated as hell, but it looks good, and that's what most consumers want.
You got lots of good stuff, but when your average linux-distro starts to break down, when stuff doesn't work automagicly, when hardware detetction fails and so on... Most users (and by most users I also mean powerusers) will have a really hard time fixing stuff, if they even manage to fix it at all. Not all of us are geeks who grew up with a keyboard.
Plus, I don't really care if linux hits the mainstream or not. I use what works for me, I'll let others use what works for them. To me, open standards are a lot more important than whatever OS people are running to get their work done.
Vista will implement DRM deep into the OS and when apps start "taking advantage" of that, you will notice that it's not negligible any more.
My reason for staying away from Vosta, hardware requirements aside, is DRM and DRM only. Because there are a few neat features under the hood I'd really like to have. For instance the vector-graphics GPU-accelerated desktop.
Ok. As a C#-developer, I call bullshit on your entire story.
Fine. You had a crap solution which caused you a lot of troubles. I'm not doubting that. But what you are saying is boiling down to "I don't know how to use .NET at all, I'm not willing to look up documentation, so whatever mischief and framework abuse I'm the sole cause of, I'll blame on the framework".
Really. .NET was designed to work with internet-standards to a certain degree. To a certain degree that means that you can channel any remoting over http, syncroneously or asyncroneously. However, it seems you aren't even close to knowing what sort of tools the framework provides and decides to blame that on the framework.
You know what? I'm no really any good in basic C. I know there are some network/tcp-ip includes, but I wouldn't know how to use them. If I chose to implement all that myself because of that, should I blame myself for being inept at C or complain that C doesn't do what I want? Hopefully you get my point.
So your issue isn't with .NET itself, it's with your utter lack of knowledge on how to take advantage of it.
At least where I live (Norway), short messages and mobile communication (ie without any of those non-verbal cues) seems to be generate a lot more income to the telcos from females than from males.
Please stop doing that. This is slashdot.
And, as you know, copyright will either be abondoned entirely due to total civil disobidience or it will only be extended even further.
The part about "benfiting society" was forgotten the very instant copyright holders realized there were more money to be made by bribing politicians. This is definitely not going to change anytime soon.
What I'd like to see, is the copyright cartels or congress, whoever, having the balls to officially legislate the public domain away for good. If the public domain was actually removed from existance, I'd like to see people justify copyright as a whole.
What I am saying is that where I live, if there is no technical reason for why it shouldn't be done (for instance security risks), companies are not alloved to impose restrictions.
As far as I can see, apart from valid technical concerns, the only reason a company would impose restrictions on how you should use their product would be to hinder competition. Where I live non-competitive practices are forbidden by law and the state will impose fines on companies that are found guilty, and believe it or not, these laws are actually being used.
So valid techincal reasons excluded, why should a company be allowed to impose restrioctions on products they sell? As far as I can see, there isn't one valid reason.
If you do you find this highly diagreeable in any way, I'd like to know why.
Why is it okay for a car manufacturer to specify which car models his air filter fits?
I'll admit up front that I have no idea what you are talking about, since I don't have a licence and I don't have a car. However, if the filter fits and it doesn't involve security risks, they can't say a god damned thing.
At least not where I live, and we have sane consumer-laws. I guess that might be a strange concept to people living in the US.
If they give it to you under the clear understanding that you only install it on their hardware and you BUY it and then do otherwise you're in breach of contract
So... If you saw popcorn for sale in a supermarket marked "only to be salted by expensive-brand-salt(tm)" and you buy it, what sort of offence are you commiting if you use generic cheap salt? It's the same thing, except for with software and technology all sanity and reason automaticly seems to go out the window. They are selling you a product. You are not agreeing to anything, especially no restrictions.
If they want you to have it only under certain condifiotns, then don't sell it in places and ways that makes them lose control. Make people who buy it sign a contract stating the terms of use, and no, a shrink-wrap licence is not a contract.
Ofcourse any sane software company realizes that this would be impossible while maintaing a decent amount of sales for their products.
If you want control then don't put it out in the public. If it's in the public, it's a product everyone can buy (no contract involved) and thus should abide ordinary rules regarding products and use. Which means that the producer gets to say jack shit about how people use their product. How hard is that to get?
Why does the fact that the product is software has anything to do with the restrictions applied to it, compared to any other product for sale? It's an artificial construct that it requires or deserves special treatment. The software itself is protected by copyright, and IMO that's all the protection it needs.
this stuff needs activex
I would claim this is the problem. Firefox not supporting ActiveX is one of it's key advantages IMO.
Yes, feel free to call me a zealot.
And really, what are you railing at here? The fucking name? ... Jesus, dude. Get over it.
Oh well. I think it's stupid, so be it. But I think you just proved my point. That it's because of the whole "blogosphere" thing that it's buzzwordworhty, and nothing else.
Me? I'm oldschool. I prefer to call a showel a showel, not a dirtcaster. But again, that's just me.
Hey! This ain't a troll. Did the mods wake up with decaffed coffee or what?
I mean... A story about blogs and the "red/write-web"? Now that is a troll if I ever saw one. But this? Just simple humour among simple people.
Your comment just created a deep disturbance in the blogosphere. May the trackback be with us.
So what you are saying is that applying the well known thing RSS to something as basic as putting audio-files online is revolutionary?
Jeez. I better start to refer to my automatic torrents-downloads as torrentcasting! Oh. One for audio, one for movies and one for tvshows. Showcasting! Now that'd be a showoff in buzzwordism wouldn't it? And my news-checking? Nucasting! Awesome. I'm on a roll here!
But I guess the fact that it's outside the "blogosphere" means that it ain't buzzword worthy. So people use RSS to do something traditional. Now we need a new word? Would you care to fiber-opt me the new'n'hot buzzword worthy list of other revolutionary achievements?
Yes. That was sarcasm.
I don't see the link to the RSS feed anywhere on that page. No RSS = not a podcast.
And that RSS feed would make just how much of a difference, if I may ask?
I refer you to Maddox's "If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide". It's a good read for all you people who seem to think all these blogs in the blogosphere podcasting Filegate-pundits actually is something more than stupid words for old things.
No, really. Read it.
Oh well. So not even the english people knows proper english anymore *grin*
But, just in case you missed it, I do agree with your stance. I just really dislike newspeak.
HTTP-GET, sure. But care to explain how you make a HTTP-POST request with a <A> hyperlink?
But I would think that the reason for these "bugs" happen to be the VB.NET programmer himself. *grin*
But really. Why, oh, why not use the C# instead?
So how much does a 4GB installation of Visual Studio weigh, if I may ask? :P
Just kidding. I couldn't agree more.
I haven't been able to sample VS.NET 2005 too thourougly, but as far as developing ASP.NET applications goes, the changes are tremendous.
And for the better, I might add, in case there were any doubt.
Buuuwaaaahahahahihihihahahalolroflhohohohohohobwua hahahahahahahahahahaha
Good one! I take it that was a joke, right?