I'll be curious to see how well they do this. Quite frankly, Linux and FreeBSD have always rocked on less-powerful hardware, because they can fit into a smaller space more readily. Retroactively making XP less of a resource pig isn't going to be easy I bet. It'll certainly be interesting to see what they do. I'd say the quickest thing they can do is kill off all legacy APIs and crufty bits, but I suspect that too much of their own code requires it to function.
The thing I'm particularly interested in is what they do about OpenOffice. Obviously, there is absolutely no way they are going to want OOo being shipped with XP-lite, but equally, they do need to ship something; but aren't their current "Works" apps basically Office apps with the fancy bits disabled? This being the case, I'd guess they're going to have loads of fun trying to reduce the size of this code base.
Lucky for MS that Apple don't seem to want to compete directly with MS or even be a mass-market IT supplier, but it's unfortunate for MS that the next LTS Ubuntu looks *REALLY* polished!
Yes. Microsoft painted itself into a corner. They will, eventually, figure a way to get out, but I am not sure they will do it in time. It's easy, just cut a hole in the wall! OMG... you mean like... a window?
Different people need different machines, so for a lot of people you're absolutely right. But one thing that attracts me towards the EEE is it's small size, light weight and even the power charger is small like a mobile phone rather than the brick like object that normally comes with a "full power" laptop. The only thing that really bothers me about the EEE is the screen size (both physical size and screeen resolution), but I think thats the trade-off! The newer bigger screen EEE *I believe* has a larger power charger.
On a slightly unrelated note, when are these mini-laptops going to include a screen like the one on the OLPC?
But given that in some circumstances ActiveX can be insecure (being used on a dodgey domain), and given that the majority of users a clueless**, and given that if ActiveX is ever allowed to run on a dodge domain, the computer is compromised, *why* would a bank even dream of encouraging its use?
And thus, I'm inclined to agree with the parent that a new bank should be found! Egg appear to making bad decisions.
**I'm not dissing them btw! I'm just stating that the majority of users do not understand computer security issues.
Hard to say without any specific examples... but typically people don't really like change unless they actually get something for it. Linux tends not to change unless there is a reason; why would it? Since development is largely based on volunteered time, someone will only make the effort if there is a practical purpose. Also, if someone makes available a new version of something, then unless there is a benefit, people will not use it.
In the Microsoft Windows world, all changes are ultimately based on Microsofts business needs. These may coincide with users needs, e.g. MS improves something to benefit users which in turn benefits MS. And somethings (arguably more often!), changes are made purely to benefit MS, e.g. force users to pay to upgrade to the new version of something because it has been deliberately made incompatible with older software. And unlike with FOSS, users have no choice; they have to use the new software since the older versions will be made unavailable, so there is no survival of the fittest.
To be fair, Linux/FOSS does sometimes get some stick for lack of updates. Debian springs to mind, but even they're quicker moving than MS!
I've not used it but I believe it only works via an import/export interface, rather than the standard open/save dialogs. And the user cannot select ODF as the default save format.
I hope not. They do have a 8.04.1 scheduled for a few months later... June/July if my memory serves correctly, so I think they can get away with shipping a late beta/release-candidate.
Probably the wrong place to post this, but you comment triggered this thought: it's almost worth contriving some "new" open document standard with no actual working implementation, 6000+ pages long, with with loads of flaws and seeing if ISO would be happy to rubber stamp that!
I have nothing to really add except to add my voice to the numerous others that think this is disgusting.
The damage to ISOs credibility is immense. And as for MS, well, if they had any credibility before....
It really shows what low-life scum they are that they'd do anything to keep their monopoly in place, and what contempt they have the general public.
Quote:
"
Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh has tabled a parliamentary question expressing his disappointment at the BSI's apparent change of heart:
"I am deeply concerned that some national bodies have considered approving DIS29500 'in their national interest'. It is not in the interest of the UK or any other country for DIS 29500 to be published as an international standard in its present form as there are a significant number of unresolved issues, including incompatible licensing conditions, single vendor interest and control as well as those other factors uncovered since the original comment period closed."
He concludes by urging the BSI not to change its stance on OOXML.
"
Given how the process seems closed, I wonder how Microsoft could've/would've approached... [ahem]... ensuring the "correct" decision was made?
I could be wrong, but I think 16MB was the official requirement in those them days! I know I bought the original version of Delphi at the time because at least that only required 8MB.
There's nothing preventing anyone from doing exactly that, but I think it makes sense for the default format to be text based. If you have an application that would particularly benefit from a more compact binary format (e.g. limited bandwidth and/or cpu, e.g. mobile applications) then you can do that. But if XML had been binary by default then I think it would've made it less accessible and therefore less likely to be widely adopted.
Then again, you might say that a browser should render [X]HTML + CSS by default, but provide the JavaScript interpreter as an extension. I'm not saying thats a good idea, but I'm just making the point that adding the ability to selectively run JS is not really such a bloat inducing feature!
While you're at it, why not put AdBlock Plus in there and FlashBlock and Greasemonkey and Fasterfox and GMail Notifier and...
Oddly, you could argue that AdBlock/FlashBlock and NoScript cover the same ground and therefore *could* reasonably be included by default... perhaps with a dumbed down interface. Then, if required, provide an enhanced interface by extension.
I simply can't believe that the things you get are highly sought after.
Yeah, but it's thin! What more do you want?!
One point you missed is that the low end machine uses a 1.8 inch HD with an RPM of around 4K... so presumably if they hadn't included 2GB ram, it'd be more likely to need to page out to a slow hard drive and make the machine feel slow.
IMHO its a very cute machine and if they sell a lot, they'll make a killing as their margins must be high on this. But I'm sure there will be other similar machines out this year; i.e. machines with no removable media devices and a small HD or SSD a-la the Asus EEE.
For me the new Mac is far too expensive, but I'm sure some people will enjoy it.
Now, to actually get to the computer, it would also have to bypass your software firewall as well.
The flash code runs in your browser. Your software firewall *might* prevent the flash-app from connecting to the uPNP SOAP port.... but then again, it might not since people will allow access for Flash.
Of course, all this does is open ports, it doesn't actually attack or exploit anything.
If it opened up your Windows file shares that would probably not be a good thing; even if you have no shares, Windows *used* to enable a hidden C$ share.... I'm guessing it doesn't these days, but even so, some users running older/unpatched software will still be vulnerable.
But in addition to just opening some ports, some routers also provide access to user/password info via these uPNP SOAP requests, and even allow changing DNS servers! So for example, any time you try to access your-bank.com, you might actually be visiting evil-bank.com; the latter being a proxy for your-bank.com so it looks identical, but it collects your bank login details. And it would be *very* difficult to see where the problem was. Your computer could be 100% patched up and clean, but still you're leaking data!
This truly is a *huge* problem!! The only thing I don't know is how many routers allow changing the DNS servers. Certainly, the Speedtouch/BT Home Hub routers did have this problem, but is this a common problem? If it is.... then things is bad!;)
Exactly how much additional profit do you expect to make? Intel are competing with a product that has no overhead... so I am struggling to understand *why* they would target such a market. And for the same reasons, I'll be suspicious that back-handers haven't [ahem] facilitated things if Peru do sign up with Intel.
Seriously, I understand the "Intel is a business" argument, but that doesn't mean it's A-okay to fsck people over like this.
Assuming you aren't as cold hearted to think profit at any cost is good, it might be worth asking what the business case is here. As I mentioned above, I can't see much scope for huge profit when competing against OLPC, which makes me think that the intent is actually to ensure a competing product doesn't get a foot-hold to allow it to affect Intel's profits in the future. The threat is unlikely to be OLPC competing in profitable markets, but more likely OLPC driving down margins. The *business* case for the latter would make sense (particularly if you have no conscience), but it *is* pretty low-life behaviour; it's preventing any competition in a similar way to Microsoft do in the OS/Office market to maintain position.
Was it a saving of $1600 per day, or did he mean it cost $1600 a day to run the ship normally (without a kite) and that they'd be looking to save around 20%, so $320 per day?
You say that, but they do sell their own material to other networks and presumably these *other networks* would be somewhat less impressed if the BBC also gave the same material away via their website.
"...and as a PROFESSIONAL I'd think you'd have learned all the quirks by now."
Some how, I find IE6 has an almost magical ability to throw up some near and exciting bug! Seriously, it is *very* unpredictable; the only saving grace being that someone else has probably discovered the bug previously and posted a work-around.
Unless you've had to deal with this first hand, I can understand how it would be difficult to appreciate just how awful IE6 can be. Conversely, I personally find IE7, whilst not bug free, it a total walk in the park in comparison. The worst thing about IE7 IMHO is that is doesn't run on Windows pre XP... and consequently, I now have to target both IE7 and IE6.
Anyone prepared to guess how long it will be before IE6 usage drops below 20 percent? 'cos it looks to me like IE6 will still be hanging around annoying me for at least another 2 years.:(
Do any of the products you listed allow generation of PDFs with thumbnails? Specifically, I recently had a problem where a client requested a PDF on their website which would open with thumbnails down the left. I did Google for the answer but it _seemed_ only Adobe software would do this?
Slashdot Mirror
The thing I'm particularly interested in is what they do about OpenOffice. Obviously, there is absolutely no way they are going to want OOo being shipped with XP-lite, but equally, they do need to ship something; but aren't their current "Works" apps basically Office apps with the fancy bits disabled? This being the case, I'd guess they're going to have loads of fun trying to reduce the size of this code base.
Lucky for MS that Apple don't seem to want to compete directly with MS or even be a mass-market IT supplier, but it's unfortunate for MS that the next LTS Ubuntu looks *REALLY* polished!
Heh heh!
Different people need different machines, so for a lot of people you're absolutely right. But one thing that attracts me towards the EEE is it's small size, light weight and even the power charger is small like a mobile phone rather than the brick like object that normally comes with a "full power" laptop. The only thing that really bothers me about the EEE is the screen size (both physical size and screeen resolution), but I think thats the trade-off! The newer bigger screen EEE *I believe* has a larger power charger.
On a slightly unrelated note, when are these mini-laptops going to include a screen like the one on the OLPC?
So not only can I watch Eastenders when I want, I can play tennis with them too! :D
But given that in some circumstances ActiveX can be insecure (being used on a dodgey domain), and given that the majority of users a clueless**, and given that if ActiveX is ever allowed to run on a dodge domain, the computer is compromised, *why* would a bank even dream of encouraging its use?
And thus, I'm inclined to agree with the parent that a new bank should be found! Egg appear to making bad decisions.
**I'm not dissing them btw! I'm just stating that the majority of users do not understand computer security issues.
Hard to say without any specific examples... but typically people don't really like change unless they actually get something for it. Linux tends not to change unless there is a reason; why would it? Since development is largely based on volunteered time, someone will only make the effort if there is a practical purpose. Also, if someone makes available a new version of something, then unless there is a benefit, people will not use it.
In the Microsoft Windows world, all changes are ultimately based on Microsofts business needs. These may coincide with users needs, e.g. MS improves something to benefit users which in turn benefits MS. And somethings (arguably more often!), changes are made purely to benefit MS, e.g. force users to pay to upgrade to the new version of something because it has been deliberately made incompatible with older software. And unlike with FOSS, users have no choice; they have to use the new software since the older versions will be made unavailable, so there is no survival of the fittest.
To be fair, Linux/FOSS does sometimes get some stick for lack of updates. Debian springs to mind, but even they're quicker moving than MS!
I've not used it but I believe it only works via an import/export interface, rather than the standard open/save dialogs. And the user cannot select ODF as the default save format.
I hope not. They do have a 8.04.1 scheduled for a few months later... June/July if my memory serves correctly, so I think they can get away with shipping a late beta/release-candidate.
Probably the wrong place to post this, but you comment triggered this thought: it's almost worth contriving some "new" open document standard with no actual working implementation, 6000+ pages long, with with loads of flaws and seeing if ISO would be happy to rubber stamp that!
I have nothing to really add except to add my voice to the numerous others that think this is disgusting.
The damage to ISOs credibility is immense. And as for MS, well, if they had any credibility before....
It really shows what low-life scum they are that they'd do anything to keep their monopoly in place, and what contempt they have the general public.
There's a mention here in the register
Quote:
"
Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh has tabled a parliamentary question expressing his disappointment at the BSI's apparent change of heart: "I am deeply concerned that some national bodies have considered approving DIS29500 'in their national interest'. It is not in the interest of the UK or any other country for DIS 29500 to be published as an international standard in its present form as there are a significant number of unresolved issues, including incompatible licensing conditions, single vendor interest and control as well as those other factors uncovered since the original comment period closed." He concludes by urging the BSI not to change its stance on OOXML.
"
Given how the process seems closed, I wonder how Microsoft could've/would've approached... [ahem]... ensuring the "correct" decision was made?
I think the OP was referring to the playback being better, as in less dropped frames, hence the subject "Flash 9 on Linux is terrible".
Soooo... are you suggesting RMS has given up his Emacs role so he can concentrate on his new role in Cuba? ;)
I could be wrong, but I think 16MB was the official requirement in those them days! I know I bought the original version of Delphi at the time because at least that only required 8MB.
There's nothing preventing anyone from doing exactly that, but I think it makes sense for the default format to be text based. If you have an application that would particularly benefit from a more compact binary format (e.g. limited bandwidth and/or cpu, e.g. mobile applications) then you can do that. But if XML had been binary by default then I think it would've made it less accessible and therefore less likely to be widely adopted.
Then again, you might say that a browser should render [X]HTML + CSS by default, but provide the JavaScript interpreter as an extension. I'm not saying thats a good idea, but I'm just making the point that adding the ability to selectively run JS is not really such a bloat inducing feature!
...
While you're at it, why not put AdBlock Plus in there and FlashBlock and Greasemonkey and Fasterfox and GMail Notifier and
Oddly, you could argue that AdBlock/FlashBlock and NoScript cover the same ground and therefore *could* reasonably be included by default... perhaps with a dumbed down interface. Then, if required, provide an enhanced interface by extension.
But it's understandable that people will be upset that IE7 is being forced.
It's been on the cards for quite some time though.... I mean, no one could've really thought that IE6 and ActiveX would be supported indefinitely.
I simply can't believe that the things you get are highly sought after.
Yeah, but it's thin! What more do you want?!
One point you missed is that the low end machine uses a 1.8 inch HD with an RPM of around 4K... so presumably if they hadn't included 2GB ram, it'd be more likely to need to page out to a slow hard drive and make the machine feel slow.
IMHO its a very cute machine and if they sell a lot, they'll make a killing as their margins must be high on this. But I'm sure there will be other similar machines out this year; i.e. machines with no removable media devices and a small HD or SSD a-la the Asus EEE.
For me the new Mac is far too expensive, but I'm sure some people will enjoy it.
Now, to actually get to the computer, it would also have to bypass your software firewall as well.
;)
The flash code runs in your browser. Your software firewall *might* prevent the flash-app from connecting to the uPNP SOAP port.... but then again, it might not since people will allow access for Flash.
Of course, all this does is open ports, it doesn't actually attack or exploit anything.
If it opened up your Windows file shares that would probably not be a good thing; even if you have no shares, Windows *used* to enable a hidden C$ share.... I'm guessing it doesn't these days, but even so, some users running older/unpatched software will still be vulnerable.
But in addition to just opening some ports, some routers also provide access to user/password info via these uPNP SOAP requests, and even allow changing DNS servers! So for example, any time you try to access your-bank.com, you might actually be visiting evil-bank.com; the latter being a proxy for your-bank.com so it looks identical, but it collects your bank login details. And it would be *very* difficult to see where the problem was. Your computer could be 100% patched up and clean, but still you're leaking data!
This truly is a *huge* problem!! The only thing I don't know is how many routers allow changing the DNS servers. Certainly, the Speedtouch/BT Home Hub routers did have this problem, but is this a common problem? If it is.... then things is bad!
FYI my Netgear DG834G supports this.
Exactly how much additional profit do you expect to make? Intel are competing with a product that has no overhead... so I am struggling to understand *why* they would target such a market. And for the same reasons, I'll be suspicious that back-handers haven't [ahem] facilitated things if Peru do sign up with Intel.
Seriously, I understand the "Intel is a business" argument, but that doesn't mean it's A-okay to fsck people over like this.
Assuming you aren't as cold hearted to think profit at any cost is good, it might be worth asking what the business case is here. As I mentioned above, I can't see much scope for huge profit when competing against OLPC, which makes me think that the intent is actually to ensure a competing product doesn't get a foot-hold to allow it to affect Intel's profits in the future. The threat is unlikely to be OLPC competing in profitable markets, but more likely OLPC driving down margins. The *business* case for the latter would make sense (particularly if you have no conscience), but it *is* pretty low-life behaviour; it's preventing any competition in a similar way to Microsoft do in the OS/Office market to maintain position.
Was it a saving of $1600 per day, or did he mean it cost $1600 a day to run the ship normally (without a kite) and that they'd be looking to save around 20%, so $320 per day?
You say that, but they do sell their own material to other networks and presumably these *other networks* would be somewhat less impressed if the BBC also gave the same material away via their website.
"...and as a PROFESSIONAL I'd think you'd have learned all the quirks by now."
:(
Some how, I find IE6 has an almost magical ability to throw up some near and exciting bug! Seriously, it is *very* unpredictable; the only saving grace being that someone else has probably discovered the bug previously and posted a work-around.
Unless you've had to deal with this first hand, I can understand how it would be difficult to appreciate just how awful IE6 can be. Conversely, I personally find IE7, whilst not bug free, it a total walk in the park in comparison. The worst thing about IE7 IMHO is that is doesn't run on Windows pre XP... and consequently, I now have to target both IE7 and IE6.
Anyone prepared to guess how long it will be before IE6 usage drops below 20 percent? 'cos it looks to me like IE6 will still be hanging around annoying me for at least another 2 years.
Do any of the products you listed allow generation of PDFs with thumbnails? Specifically, I recently had a problem where a client requested a PDF on their website which would open with thumbnails down the left. I did Google for the answer but it _seemed_ only Adobe software would do this?