Basically the article says:
Vista is the best version of Windows ever...But its not.
Vista is very secure...But only if secure it.
You get a free Antivirus program...Buts its not as good as the ones you have to pay for.
Vista is very easy to use...But I still had to click on stuff, so it sucks
Vista has a cool search feature...But Apple had it first.
No, what he said is more like: Vista is the best version of Windows ever... But it's not that much better. These two statements can be both true, you know? Vista is secure... But only if you care about it. I don't see how that's false. Security is a process, not a state. You get a free Antispyware program... But it's not as good as the ones you have to pay for. Might also be true, I don't know. Vista is very easy to use... But I still had to click on stuff, so it sucks Well, it sucks to have to work more for the same thing. In this case it's for a good reason, but it still sucks. Vista has a cool search feature... But Apple had it first. I don't see the problem. This is true. It's a fair report.
There might be other reasons to buy Vista, and other reasons not to, but in general, to the public of the WSJ this is a good analysis on what to expect. To me, it didn't include much on DRM, but I'm not the target of the article.
Because someone calling Chomsky "Chimpsky" and having a Slashdot account is in the right place to argue to begin with. And somehow this is insightful.
Note: I don't respect -or even know, apart from the name- about Chomsky, just that name-calling is what it is. If you have a genuine argument, then please, be my guest.
I was actually most conscious of writing that with masculine pronouns, mainly because my native language uses the masculine as the neutral, and because I don't think feminism (nor any other cause) can progress by making languages dense and politically correct. I don't assume anything about females. Idiots come in all sizes, sexes, colours and flavors ("I love the taste of idiocy in the morning. It tastes like... Victory"? nah).
I don't get angry at ignorance, but at wilful negligence. Too many people not only do not know, but they demand help _without wanting to know_, and being very rude about it. When the customer prides himself on his ignorance, it's high time for niceties to stop. JM2c.
Paying less royalties for different quality would lead to a classification of media we don't need at all. Think of the opposite situation: recording agencies would then be in the position to ask a higher price for "superior" media like DVDs or CDs. A creation is a creation no matter what the media or quality is (as long as it is recognizable, of course).
Which is where my other phrase, "more efficiently" comes into play. I acknowledge a "normal" IT startup would have problems running against Google. It's not that Microsoft doesn't have them, it's the sheer amount of money it has to face them. They also have name recognition, which -surprisingly- they don't use this time: going to live.com shows they don't attach a "Microsoft" to the service, as they usually do. OK, they put a Windows this time, but it's not exactly the same (it actually should be "Microsoft Windows Live", shame on them).
Hasn't anyone ever run a slimmed down WM like TWM?
Yea, Blackbox and its ilk.
Mozilla should run just fine in that little memory
No, if I had now a computer with 256 MB of RAM (I have a 64 MB one I use as a server, though), I probably wouldn't use Mozilla on it (nor Firefox) alongside TWM. Why would I go to the trouble of avoiding "heavy" libraries (GTK) if I was going to install a feature-laden browser on it? Worse, the broser is going to require them, or their own separate attempt (yes, I use Epiphany on GNOME for, mostly, this reason).
If your PS2 port breaks, you're fucked (no keyboard). If your USB port breaks, you've got another one.
Well, If "you've got another USB port in the case your other port breaks", then you could buy a USB keyboard in the (unlikely, IMHO) case your PS2 port broke, and attach the keyboard.
So the important fact isn't that they got three-and-a-half out of four, but that they didn't get the other half "right"? I'd say it's more important that they invented menus, along with the rest of WIMP, than the fact that they put it at the top of the screen or available through a right click.
The right-click context menu has been in many window environments/managers (windowmaker, afterstep, blackbox, quite possibly NeXTStep but I've never used it...), and one reason it was used is it's the nearest point to the pointer, always. The other four "nearest" (or easiest to get to) points are the four angles of the screen. Tognazzini, who worked at Apple, talked a lot about this. The "menu on top" Apple OSes use is based on a similar concept: that of "infinite height": you can push the pointer as much as you like, it stays on the top. So you suddenly have one direction less to worry about.
Well, if we get finicky, it's an algorithm, so we don't talk much about "inventing it" and more of "coming up with it". After all, we wouldn't want those ugly software patents, would we?
Most things are "based" on something else. The important thing is: are they an innovation in their fields? Citation analysis might be the real original idea, but how used was it before in Computer Science? Lastly, I wouldn't call PageRank a "simple tweak" of anything.
Microsoft now seems to be very much in the same mold. Apple has an MP3 player? Good, let's have an MP3 player. Google has a book search? Good, let's have a book search.
...unless MS is going to pay me to use their service.
Well, lots of people pay Google for a privilege: that of their ads being shown on the service. It's how Google makes money. So Live could make advertisers pay less (or more efficiently, which amounts to pretty much the same, but is much more interesting and difficult to do) for ads.
They never move into a market unless someone is already there.
Well, a market normally doesn't even exist unless there's already someone there. But I acknowledge they've started very few new markets. Visual (as in Studio) tools, perhaps?
So in order to pirate Vista I'd have to subscribe to MSDN and get the checksum of a (probably) cracked ISO, which _should_ be different from the original? I don't see that as a useful scenario. MSDN subscriptions are even more expensive than Vista editions. I can probably think of MSDN academic alliance, which is how I got a legitimate copy of XP for free (along with VS.NET 2003, the 2003 library, etc.), but that's because I'm a student, and then again, I wasn't _pirating_ it.
So, let's review the situations: -ISO is pristine, its checksum coincides with the original one. How do I honestly know _from Microsoft_ (after all, if I want to trust the sum, I'll go to the manufacturer, not some random site) without subscribing to anything (keep in mind, I just pirated the thing, so I'm not going to bother)? Links please? -ISO is cracked, so the sum is worth nothing. It won't be the same as the original.
In any of these cases, I find it hard to believe that one can be idiot enough to download an untrusted ISO but smart enough to check it like this. Bob knows, there's plenty of idiots to prove me wrong, though.
I acknowledge that you deserve what you get if you pirate _anything_. Problem is, as others point out in these threads, computers aren't "alone" anymore, and botnets and spam servers clog up _my_ series of tubes, not just the idiot pirate's.
More to the point, unless you download your version of Vista from some obscure warez site, it's very unlikely to have malware slipstreamed into it; UNLESS YOU PUT IT IN YOURSELF.
People interested in slipping malware into something would hardly limit themselves to just put it on "some obscure warez site", when they have the possibility to put it on a p2p network. Also, it only takes the first idiot to d'load it from the site and move it to its "share" directory to begin the chain.
its pretty stinking easy to check the MD5 sum of a downloaded image, ain't it? Non-story.
Checking the MD5sum against what exactly, seeing how one would have to be stupid enough to download an insecure ISO of Vista? An original disc? and in that case, why would one download it in the first place? And if the person didn't want the copy-protection in the original, and downloaded a cracked ISO, then what good would the MD5sum be?
Or did you mean that it's easy to get and check the MD5sum of a Linux ISO? Because that wasn't what the story was at all.
Because it only listens to _incoming_ applications and packets, not _outgoing_ ones. After all, if you install the free version of ZoneAlarm you immediately get warnings when you open IE and Firefox, because they are trying to "get on the 'net".
...well that is just plain ignorant Bullshit. WMP phone home is OPTIONAL and OFF by default.
Though it is optional, I had to set that "feature" OFF in the latest updating of XP I did: a Toshiba notebook, 2 days ago. Might have been Toshiba's settings, not MS, but I seem to recall having to turn it off in my own XP install from scratch on my own computer.
Slashdot Mirror
No, what he said is more like:
Vista is the best version of Windows ever... But it's not that much better. These two statements can be both true, you know?
Vista is secure... But only if you care about it. I don't see how that's false. Security is a process, not a state.
You get a free Antispyware program... But it's not as good as the ones you have to pay for. Might also be true, I don't know.
Vista is very easy to use... But I still had to click on stuff, so it sucks Well, it sucks to have to work more for the same thing. In this case it's for a good reason, but it still sucks.
Vista has a cool search feature... But Apple had it first. I don't see the problem. This is true. It's a fair report.
There might be other reasons to buy Vista, and other reasons not to, but in general, to the public of the WSJ this is a good analysis on what to expect. To me, it didn't include much on DRM, but I'm not the target of the article.
I'm shocked too, that someone using ad-hominem attacks would resort to anonymous posting. Amazing. This must be Slashdot.
The fact that Updegrove might have a vested interest in ODF succeeding doesn't detract from the OOXML proposed standard being a crock of shit.
Because someone calling Chomsky "Chimpsky" and having a Slashdot account is in the right place to argue to begin with. And somehow this is insightful.
Note: I don't respect -or even know, apart from the name- about Chomsky, just that name-calling is what it is. If you have a genuine argument, then please, be my guest.
I was actually most conscious of writing that with masculine pronouns, mainly because my native language uses the masculine as the neutral, and because I don't think feminism (nor any other cause) can progress by making languages dense and politically correct. I don't assume anything about females. Idiots come in all sizes, sexes, colours and flavors ("I love the taste of idiocy in the morning. It tastes like... Victory"? nah).
I don't get angry at ignorance, but at wilful negligence. Too many people not only do not know, but they demand help _without wanting to know_, and being very rude about it. When the customer prides himself on his ignorance, it's high time for niceties to stop. JM2c.
That's why I play as a druid. Animal companion + summon + ally + me (as a bear) + perhaps a charmed animal = more fun.
No, you couldn't.
Paying less royalties for different quality would lead to a classification of media we don't need at all. Think of the opposite situation: recording agencies would then be in the position to ask a higher price for "superior" media like DVDs or CDs. A creation is a creation no matter what the media or quality is (as long as it is recognizable, of course).
Which is where my other phrase, "more efficiently" comes into play. I acknowledge a "normal" IT startup would have problems running against Google. It's not that Microsoft doesn't have them, it's the sheer amount of money it has to face them. They also have name recognition, which -surprisingly- they don't use this time: going to live.com shows they don't attach a "Microsoft" to the service, as they usually do. OK, they put a Windows this time, but it's not exactly the same (it actually should be "Microsoft Windows Live", shame on them).
Yea, Blackbox and its ilk.
No, if I had now a computer with 256 MB of RAM (I have a 64 MB one I use as a server, though), I probably wouldn't use Mozilla on it (nor Firefox) alongside TWM. Why would I go to the trouble of avoiding "heavy" libraries (GTK) if I was going to install a feature-laden browser on it? Worse, the broser is going to require them, or their own separate attempt (yes, I use Epiphany on GNOME for, mostly, this reason).
Well, If "you've got another USB port in the case your other port breaks", then you could buy a USB keyboard in the (unlikely, IMHO) case your PS2 port broke, and attach the keyboard.
So the important fact isn't that they got three-and-a-half out of four, but that they didn't get the other half "right"? I'd say it's more important that they invented menus, along with the rest of WIMP, than the fact that they put it at the top of the screen or available through a right click.
The right-click context menu has been in many window environments/managers (windowmaker, afterstep, blackbox, quite possibly NeXTStep but I've never used it...), and one reason it was used is it's the nearest point to the pointer, always. The other four "nearest" (or easiest to get to) points are the four angles of the screen. Tognazzini, who worked at Apple, talked a lot about this. The "menu on top" Apple OSes use is based on a similar concept: that of "infinite height": you can push the pointer as much as you like, it stays on the top. So you suddenly have one direction less to worry about.
Well, if we get finicky, it's an algorithm, so we don't talk much about "inventing it" and more of "coming up with it". After all, we wouldn't want those ugly software patents, would we?
Most things are "based" on something else. The important thing is: are they an innovation in their fields? Citation analysis might be the real original idea, but how used was it before in Computer Science? Lastly, I wouldn't call PageRank a "simple tweak" of anything.
Well, they certainly don't do it to skimp on R&D.
Yes. And they call it PageRank, go figure.
Apple didn't invent the WIMP interface, the people at Xerox's PARC did.
Well, lots of people pay Google for a privilege: that of their ads being shown on the service. It's how Google makes money. So Live could make advertisers pay less (or more efficiently, which amounts to pretty much the same, but is much more interesting and difficult to do) for ads.
Well, a market normally doesn't even exist unless there's already someone there. But I acknowledge they've started very few new markets. Visual (as in Studio) tools, perhaps?
So in order to pirate Vista I'd have to subscribe to MSDN and get the checksum of a (probably) cracked ISO, which _should_ be different from the original? I don't see that as a useful scenario. MSDN subscriptions are even more expensive than Vista editions. I can probably think of MSDN academic alliance, which is how I got a legitimate copy of XP for free (along with VS.NET 2003, the 2003 library, etc.), but that's because I'm a student, and then again, I wasn't _pirating_ it.
So, let's review the situations:
-ISO is pristine, its checksum coincides with the original one. How do I honestly know _from Microsoft_ (after all, if I want to trust the sum, I'll go to the manufacturer, not some random site) without subscribing to anything (keep in mind, I just pirated the thing, so I'm not going to bother)? Links please?
-ISO is cracked, so the sum is worth nothing. It won't be the same as the original.
In any of these cases, I find it hard to believe that one can be idiot enough to download an untrusted ISO but smart enough to check it like this. Bob knows, there's plenty of idiots to prove me wrong, though.
I acknowledge that you deserve what you get if you pirate _anything_. Problem is, as others point out in these threads, computers aren't "alone" anymore, and botnets and spam servers clog up _my_ series of tubes, not just the idiot pirate's.
People interested in slipping malware into something would hardly limit themselves to just put it on "some obscure warez site", when they have the possibility to put it on a p2p network. Also, it only takes the first idiot to d'load it from the site and move it to its "share" directory to begin the chain.
The difference is, the MD5 or SHA1sum of any Linux distro is usually available. I doubt that'll be the case with Vista.
Checking the MD5sum against what exactly, seeing how one would have to be stupid enough to download an insecure ISO of Vista? An original disc? and in that case, why would one download it in the first place? And if the person didn't want the copy-protection in the original, and downloaded a cracked ISO, then what good would the MD5sum be?
Or did you mean that it's easy to get and check the MD5sum of a Linux ISO? Because that wasn't what the story was at all.
Because it only listens to _incoming_ applications and packets, not _outgoing_ ones. After all, if you install the free version of ZoneAlarm you immediately get warnings when you open IE and Firefox, because they are trying to "get on the 'net".
Though it is optional, I had to set that "feature" OFF in the latest updating of XP I did: a Toshiba notebook, 2 days ago. Might have been Toshiba's settings, not MS, but I seem to recall having to turn it off in my own XP install from scratch on my own computer.
Difference is (or could be) that you still feel for the poor people involved in the derailment, and their relatives.