More likely, Microsoft will end up looking like Enron - given the ethical capabilities of its leadership, it's inevitable that they will turn to cooking the books, bribing auditors, etc., etc.
Half the comments I read were bashing it - most without having read the FAQ.
I'm not supporting this yet until I see developers pick it up, use it, and I get to use it to install something and find no problems. But the Flash demo looked very nice to me. Easier than installing Windows software, evidently.
Good analysis. Perfectly correct. I can't count how many times I've noticed some idiot progress bar that says "100%" - and then sits there for five minutes while something else goes on...
Just about as bad as Windows telling me it will take ten minutes to copy a file - which is then done in thirty seconds to be replaced by another file which will take five minutes - and takes ten...Christ, don't even bother if you can't be accurate!
I mean, this sort of thing really demonstrates to me that the developer was too lazy to test his installation method and just doesn't care that it looks and acts sloppy.
This sort of thing is endemic in the whole software industry.
Looked at the zero install site. Interesting. However, no discussion of dial-up net connections and how that might impact the initial run. Of course, without zero install you'd have to download it anyway...And once it's cached, it wouldn't matter.
However, what happens if the site is down and you need to run something that needs to be updated? Not necessarily too likely, but that's just off the top of my head.
Seems to me this would have problems very similar to why I treat the notion of "web applications" and ASPS with suspicion. I think I prefer having control of my apps on my own machine. I never bought Sun's "the network is the computer" model - because it's not. Not yet, anyway.
None of the security problems on Windows comes from the overall method of software distribution.
I have downloaded TONS of freeware programs - from recognized freeware sites that DO TEST their software for viruses and spyware and on the recommendation of OTHER USERS who USE that software and check for the existence of spyware.
In fact, freeware sites have been doing this since back in the BBS days.
I have NEVER had a spyware/trojan/virus problem with Windows freeware. Even with the few ad-ware programs I have used in the past.
None of the security ease of Linux comes from having distros distribute the software. It comes ENTIRELY from the fact that OSS is not commercial and has no motivation to install spyware.
This entire concept that software distribution has significant security concerns is entirely bogus - because it takes place in a community context and anybody distributing malware is detected very quickly.
The ENTIRE problem with spyware and other malware comes from malicious WEB SITES and also from people downloading pointless, stupid little "free" programs from COMMERCIAL entities. If users were made more aware of the legitimate freeware sites where much better freeware was available, they would be less inclined to download anything they see thrust at them.
This is a user education issue - not a software distribution one.
"The debian team would never include gator (claria??) in their repositories but i know tucows or downloads.com might do."
Excuse me, but it is my impression that most of the freeware download sites WILL specify if spyware has been included in the software - once they are made aware of that.
I have NEVER gotten spyware, trojans or viruses from ANY freeware download - and I have TONS of them.
People who use freeware - such as those on alt.comp.freeware - are VERY picky about their freeware being free of crap. Any freeware that picks up crap is dumped on fast.
The problem is not freeware, but pointless idiot programs created by commercial entities and downloaded by idiots that don't know much better and much safer stuff is available at reputable freeware download sites like pricelessware.com.
According to their FAQ, you continue to use RPM for your distro fixes and security updates. Especially since they intend to integrate with such package management systems eventually.
For such fixes and updates from your packaged software, you go to the guy (or the repository) who created those fixes and update the package.
Where's the problem?
It appears to me you are extrapolating a situation that has not occurred yet and for which there is no evidence it will occur.
Just because developers do packages doesn't mean they won't submit those packages to repositories and distros.
I have almost ALWAYS seen an installation problem with Windows.
Namely that the default install is to Program Files on the C: drive.
And I don't happen to want it there. I want a lean C: drive. I want my programs on D: and my data elsewhere.
While most programs allow me to change that location on Windows, some - especially Microsoft programs - want to just ignore my wishes and dump the program on C:.
And another installation problem I have always seen is that Windows programs want to put five thousand keys in the Registry - due to programmer laziness. So when I find a program that is well-behaved, installs in its own directory, does not place keys in the registry, and can be uninstalled by simply deleting the directory, it is a pleasure. Because I control that program, not it (or Windows) me.
The Registry was the biggest stupid mistake MS made in designing the system. A massive undocumented single source of failure subject to the whims of every developer.
"To me it seems like anything that makes it easy for users to install random software off the internet to be a REALLY BAD THING."
This is hardly the point of the project.
The point of the project is to eliminate problems for developers in packaging their software to be able to run across distros.
The fact that it makes it easier to relieve dependency hell is a bonus for those users who want packages not included in their distro.
Anybody who says EVERYTHING they'll ever need is included in their distro is just being a troll. Because it simply is not possible that ANY distro is "finished." And a lot of people don't want to wait months until something they want shows up in a repository.
If Windows did that, everybody would still be using DOS.
Finally, the notion that it is somehow "evil" to install software from the Net is just stupid. The Net exists to distribute information - and programs are part of that.
Practically everything I use on the Windows side of my machine was downloaded off some Web site or another - and I have several gigs of stuff on my Linux side to explore yet which also has the same origin.
And I have NEVER had a spyware/virus/trojan problem from such software. (Although I have had software that simply screwed up the machine due to stupid programming.)
Users get spyware and other crap from stupid, pointless little programs offered by commercial entities because the user acts like a kid in a candy store when offered something "free". If the users really knew what freeware was about and where to get anything they need, they would be less likely to do stupid stuff like downloading a calendar program loaded with spyware.
While it is true that CORPORATE users should be restricted from downloading any damn thing they see (unless it has a productivity purpose), home users certainly should not be.
Your solution smacks of the paternalism I hate about Windows. You want your distro to control your machine just as much as Gates wants to control Windows users.
Which I guess is why you don't use Windows because just about everything takes that long on Windows - especially when you have to answer license questions AND tell it where to install everything (otherwise it dumps it in your main partition).
The point I'm making is that users who are used to Windows won't find this particularly slow.
Considering the problems it is supposed to solve, it doesn't seem to me to be particularly slow.
They have an article about the alarm caused by the "Windows for Warships" project in England.
Seems the history of Windows on warships in the US is not good (read the sidebar about how US warships have been taken out of action by Windows crashes) - and people do NOT want Windows on nuclear submarines - isolated from critical (read: "nuclear launch") subsystems or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally put it at between 2030 and 2050 - with an outside chance that it may take as long as 2100.
Things always take longer than the optimists think, but not as long as the pessimists think.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The ultimate in Windows fan boys...
Dream on, loser...
More likely, Microsoft will end up looking like Enron - given the ethical capabilities of its leadership, it's inevitable that they will turn to cooking the books, bribing auditors, etc., etc.
"And most major advances in medical technology will end up giving us something more like the latter than the former."
Nonsense.
Totally ignores nanotech which will be able to completely rebuild cells - before making them obsolete altogether.
Even today, with proper training, eighty-year-old martial artists can kick your ass.
'By 2215 "we" will all be dead.'
What do you mean "we", human?
have WAY too much time on their hands.
(As I waste my time posting this.)
that virus writers have turned to more lucrative malware such as phishing, working with organized crime, etc.
As Don Rickles used to say, "What? That's better?"
I suspect that Microsoft will now attempt to use this fact (if it is a fact) to say, "See? Our security is better now!"
Bullshit.
Since some other idiot posted the same irrelevancy elsewhere, yes, somebody else sees the irrelevant irony.
Who cares - beside you and him (and maybe Stallman)?
Fine.
Those of use who don't use Debian salute you.
No one is bashing it?
Half the comments I read were bashing it - most without having read the FAQ.
I'm not supporting this yet until I see developers pick it up, use it, and I get to use it to install something and find no problems. But the Flash demo looked very nice to me. Easier than installing Windows software, evidently.
Good analysis. Perfectly correct. I can't count how many times I've noticed some idiot progress bar that says "100%" - and then sits there for five minutes while something else goes on...
Just about as bad as Windows telling me it will take ten minutes to copy a file - which is then done in thirty seconds to be replaced by another file which will take five minutes - and takes ten...Christ, don't even bother if you can't be accurate!
I mean, this sort of thing really demonstrates to me that the developer was too lazy to test his installation method and just doesn't care that it looks and acts sloppy.
This sort of thing is endemic in the whole software industry.
Looked at the zero install site. Interesting. However, no discussion of dial-up net connections and how that might impact the initial run. Of course, without zero install you'd have to download it anyway...And once it's cached, it wouldn't matter.
However, what happens if the site is down and you need to run something that needs to be updated? Not necessarily too likely, but that's just off the top of my head.
Seems to me this would have problems very similar to why I treat the notion of "web applications" and ASPS with suspicion. I think I prefer having control of my apps on my own machine. I never bought Sun's "the network is the computer" model - because it's not. Not yet, anyway.
By the time Longhorn hits the market, the human race will be extinct...
And it STILL won't have all the features Bill promised us ten years ago...
Complete bullshit.
None of the security problems on Windows comes from the overall method of software distribution.
I have downloaded TONS of freeware programs - from recognized freeware sites that DO TEST their software for viruses and spyware and on the recommendation of OTHER USERS who USE that software and check for the existence of spyware.
In fact, freeware sites have been doing this since back in the BBS days.
I have NEVER had a spyware/trojan/virus problem with Windows freeware. Even with the few ad-ware programs I have used in the past.
None of the security ease of Linux comes from having distros distribute the software. It comes ENTIRELY from the fact that OSS is not commercial and has no motivation to install spyware.
This entire concept that software distribution has significant security concerns is entirely bogus - because it takes place in a community context and anybody distributing malware is detected very quickly.
The ENTIRE problem with spyware and other malware comes from malicious WEB SITES and also from people downloading pointless, stupid little "free" programs from COMMERCIAL entities. If users were made more aware of the legitimate freeware sites where much better freeware was available, they would be less inclined to download anything they see thrust at them.
This is a user education issue - not a software distribution one.
The "wrong paradigm" argument is total nonsense.
"The debian team would never include gator (claria??) in their repositories but i know tucows or downloads.com might do."
Excuse me, but it is my impression that most of the freeware download sites WILL specify if spyware has been included in the software - once they are made aware of that.
I have NEVER gotten spyware, trojans or viruses from ANY freeware download - and I have TONS of them.
People who use freeware - such as those on alt.comp.freeware - are VERY picky about their freeware being free of crap. Any freeware that picks up crap is dumped on fast.
The problem is not freeware, but pointless idiot programs created by commercial entities and downloaded by idiots that don't know much better and much safer stuff is available at reputable freeware download sites like pricelessware.com.
According to their FAQ, you continue to use RPM for your distro fixes and security updates. Especially since they intend to integrate with such package management systems eventually.
For such fixes and updates from your packaged software, you go to the guy (or the repository) who created those fixes and update the package.
Where's the problem?
It appears to me you are extrapolating a situation that has not occurred yet and for which there is no evidence it will occur.
Just because developers do packages doesn't mean they won't submit those packages to repositories and distros.
I have almost ALWAYS seen an installation problem with Windows.
Namely that the default install is to Program Files on the C: drive.
And I don't happen to want it there. I want a lean C: drive. I want my programs on D: and my data elsewhere.
While most programs allow me to change that location on Windows, some - especially Microsoft programs - want to just ignore my wishes and dump the program on C:.
And another installation problem I have always seen is that Windows programs want to put five thousand keys in the Registry - due to programmer laziness. So when I find a program that is well-behaved, installs in its own directory, does not place keys in the registry, and can be uninstalled by simply deleting the directory, it is a pleasure. Because I control that program, not it (or Windows) me.
The Registry was the biggest stupid mistake MS made in designing the system. A massive undocumented single source of failure subject to the whims of every developer.
Fuck Windows installation methods.
Yeah, right - and allowing people choices like who they should screw is also not to be made lightly - so I guess you want to control that, too?
So you want to eliminate MY ability to decide what software to install by restricting the availability of software to stuff YOU approve of.
Pardon me, but fuck you, homes. That is entirely against the spirit of open source. What part of Stallman's "freedom" don't you comprehend?
"To me it seems like anything that makes it easy for users to install random software off the internet to be a REALLY BAD THING."
This is hardly the point of the project.
The point of the project is to eliminate problems for developers in packaging their software to be able to run across distros.
The fact that it makes it easier to relieve dependency hell is a bonus for those users who want packages not included in their distro.
Anybody who says EVERYTHING they'll ever need is included in their distro is just being a troll. Because it simply is not possible that ANY distro is "finished." And a lot of people don't want to wait months until something they want shows up in a repository.
If Windows did that, everybody would still be using DOS.
Finally, the notion that it is somehow "evil" to install software from the Net is just stupid. The Net exists to distribute information - and programs are part of that.
Practically everything I use on the Windows side of my machine was downloaded off some Web site or another - and I have several gigs of stuff on my Linux side to explore yet which also has the same origin.
And I have NEVER had a spyware/virus/trojan problem from such software. (Although I have had software that simply screwed up the machine due to stupid programming.)
Users get spyware and other crap from stupid, pointless little programs offered by commercial entities because the user acts like a kid in a candy store when offered something "free". If the users really knew what freeware was about and where to get anything they need, they would be less likely to do stupid stuff like downloading a calendar program loaded with spyware.
While it is true that CORPORATE users should be restricted from downloading any damn thing they see (unless it has a productivity purpose), home users certainly should not be.
Your solution smacks of the paternalism I hate about Windows. You want your distro to control your machine just as much as Gates wants to control Windows users.
Sorry - not acceptable.
Which I guess is why you don't use Windows because just about everything takes that long on Windows - especially when you have to answer license questions AND tell it where to install everything (otherwise it dumps it in your main partition).
The point I'm making is that users who are used to Windows won't find this particularly slow.
Considering the problems it is supposed to solve, it doesn't seem to me to be particularly slow.
And exactly how does installing something your RPM database doesn't know about NECESSARILY break your system?
Are you saying you NEVER install anything other than an RPM?
Including third party apps and miscellaneous small utilities? We're not talking OS core here, remember.
That sound have been "sarcasm implied", but I forgot
Oh, horrors!
Where's my
(yes, implied, morons.)
They have an article about the alarm caused by the "Windows for Warships" project in England.
Seems the history of Windows on warships in the US is not good (read the sidebar about how US warships have been taken out of action by Windows crashes) - and people do NOT want Windows on nuclear submarines - isolated from critical (read: "nuclear launch") subsystems or not.
"Exchange has a good feature-set; if it would just stay up and be easier to manage it'd be a great product too."
What's wrong with this picture?
More features = less reliable and less manageable - at least as long as your "technology" is limited to the Windows GUI and muddled OS design...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Typical rightwing Christian.
I got news for you, homes, we Transhumans are gonna rip out YOUR feeding tube in due time.
You're going to die. We won't. Have a nice day.