That didn't take long before the typical response "if you strip out all of the functionality that makes it even close to being as usable as Windows, you'll find it's a whole lot faster!" Tell you what, you provide me with all of the functionality AND make it faster than Windows, we'll take another look. 'til then, we'll stick with what works.
1. performance: Sorry, my little G4 Mac mini has a more responsive desktop then my Core 2 Duo Windows machine. Granted, there are plenty of areas where Windows has the OBVIOUS performance advantage, but it's not exactly all encompassing on either platform.
It's not easy to make a point when you start out by just out and out lying. Even the other Mac-pro fellow admitted that the G4 generation struggled to keep up with the Intel processors of the time. My performance comparisons were based on a G4 1.33Ghz w/ 1G RAM compared to a 1Ghz P3 with 256M of RAM. The Mac couldn't keep up on ANY task.
2. stability: I'm sorry, did you say stability? *My* Windows machine is stable, but I know what I'm doing. My dad's/uncle's/grandfather's machines are not quite the same story. My mom's Mac on the other hand... I never get "the phone call" that all of us people who are the "family tech" get. Sorry, Macs and Linux have got Windows pwned hands down here. I'm not saying Windows can't be stable, but to say that stability is something foreign to a Mac user, especially of the OS X generation, is a joke. If you were a Linux user I could take you seriously, but I mean... Windows? Stability? Ha!
Considering how often I had to force quit applications or pull the battery just to get the Mac to restart, I'd have to disagree with you there. The fact that your families computers aren't stable is indicative of YOUR problem, not theirs. True, the average person who takes a computer home is going to have tons of stability problems, but that's regardless of the OS. Which is why I don't include average users in my comparisons.
3. ease of use: A bit subjective, but my mom, aunt, 2 clients and sister-in-law imply that Macs have the advantage there too.
And, the 90% of the rest of use who use Windows disagree with you.
4. security: Hahahahahaha. Somehow, after the "stability" statement, I knew you were going to say this. And like stable, Windows CAN BE secure. Just stop using IE and get a third party browser and a third party mail app. Oh, and while you're at it, try making it easy for the average joe to NOT run as an administrator. Sorry, Windows, out of the box, is the horse's ass of security.
Okay, so you know some of the basics of how to make a machine secure, why don't you do it? My family's boxes all follow what you've laid out (and then some, of course), and I never get any calls, either.
5. application availability: See, if you had just stuck to things like this, where Windows is the clear king, it'd be easy for me to take you seriously.
Okay, so I'll try to keep it simple so you can keep up.
6. flexibility: Unless your definition of "flexible" means "I can do a lot because of my app selection and hardware" and not "my OS is teh UBER customizer!" there's nothing more inherently flexible in Windows than a Mac. And for pure GUI flexibility, Linux is king.
Linux is TOO flexible to be usable by the general masses. My point was that Windows can be used (in the hands of someone who's competent) in any capacity, unlike OSX.
Mac fanboys are annoying. But really, fanboys are annoying, even you Windows types.
I'm not a fanboy, just trying to educate the ignorant masses. The IT industry is filled with people like you and I've made it my mission to educate you or get you the fuck out. I'm tired of dealing with ignorant end-users like you.
No, we just know better. Most people I've met who speak as you and the parent are usually quite ignorant of the facts. They exist in their own little worlds and strive hard to prove to other that their justification for choosing an alternate OS is valid and not just based on pure ignorance. Just because slashdotters think Windows is unstable and insecure doesn't make it so. In fact, I've found that if a slashdotter says it can't be done, just means they have no idea how to do it. It's a sad little community of the clueless at this site, that's for sure.
Its the creation of the specific policy profiles for each configuration that takes the time. The actual type security config, once built takes no time to apply. But, then again, you probably just use the unpatched out of the box configuration, one size fits all, with servers owned within 20 minutes. Hate to be in your company....
It's safe to say with your answer above you wouldn't have even gotten past the first interview, so I wouldn't worry about it. Learn a little bit more about what you're doing and why I think it's taking you far too long to deploy a Windows box and maybe you'll understand. I give you credit, you're closer to having a clue than most I've met on slashdot.
Its called reducing the vulnerability footprint.
Yes, and you've admitted you don't know how to do it. You've complained that it can't be done, despite the fact that it can. My point is that all the reasons you've said you use Linux are the reasons we use Windows to do those jobs.
Wanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.
Huh? So, you tell me a bunch of examples that happen only sometimes, then it's the normal behavior? How does that work?
What is it lacking that you need?
Click a menu. Are there shortcuts for every item on that menu? The one next to it? The one next to that?
Okay, click a menu. You're telling me that every single entry on that menu has a shortcut? If it does, either you're not running OSX or they made substantive changes in the last year and a half.:)
Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.
How does the Windows GUI waste space in comparison to the OSX one? At the bottom of my screen, there's a 32 pixel task bar, that's it. OSX has the task bar AND the dock.
Okay. Of course, I have no problem with someone giving the Mac a real shot and not liking it. That's a matter of individual preference.
Then, I retract my "fanboy" statement from the last post because a real fanboy would never concede that some people just don't like 'em.:)
Nice troll. Of course, you missed the point, which was that one does not have to "click all over the place" to get things done on a Mac.
First, the species you're looking for is a "snark". A troll comes from MS and tries to sell you Windows when you don't want it.:) Secondly, if I ever have to reach for the mouse, I'm clicking all over the place, IMO. However, I'll give you one example that drove me insane (and I apologize if I'm not spouting 100% truth. I gave up the Mac over a year and a half ago, so I don't remember every particular) was that I couldn't tab through all fields either in dialogs or web pages. I seem to remember in particular dropdown boxes being a problem. Maybe it was radio buttons. Not sure, but my point was I prefer not to use the mouse when what I'm concentrating on is keyboard-centric such as writing a document or a slashdot reply.
Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac.
Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course.:)
As for the other things, performance is a wash, as it depends on what metric you are using.
For me, the metric was the 1Ghz P3 w/256M of RAM I'd been using for a few years prior to purchasing the Mac which was a 1.33Ghz Powerbook with 1G of RAM. The PC ran circles around the Mac in every app. I actually had to save some larger tasks 'til I went to the office to do on a Windows box. Part of that was that it was a laptop, however, I did spend the extra money to get the 7200RPM 80G drive that was offered just so that performance aspect would be similar.
Of course, more apps are available for Windows overall, but good apps are available on the Mac for most functions, especially what that average user needs.
I won't disagree with you there. Aside from a good mail notification utility, I had equivalents of everything I needed. Some were up to the same tasks, some weren't, some were compensated for by other apps. However, being a geek, there was a huge chasm between what I needed and what I wanted.:)
No, that's the kind of thinking I'd expect from the alternate OS crowd. Bitch and complain that Windows works wonky, but it's really the PICNIC. If the shortcuts were there (and there are SOME, but not all things are shortcutted), I would have learned them. But, they're not.
I never have any window that isn't showing everything it can. I only get scrollbars when the content doesn't fit on the screen. Actually seeing what's going on in the app you're using is not a problem--all maximization does that optimization doesn't is fill your screen with blank space.
Then, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.
Uh yeah. I administer both Linux and Windows machines...
Yes, I can see by the breadth of your knowledge that you do a fine job of it, too...
Using Windows 2003 server a typical web server build with patches takes about 4-5 hours to complete. A SQL DB cluster server pair is about a two day process, if everything works right. Thats with standardized build procedures that were created in a test lab environment. Don't forget the little "gotchas" like programs that require the use of NETBIOS and can't run properly using DNS/ActiveDirectory.
Wow, how could I have been so wrong? You're such a master of Windows! I'll bet you're an MCSE, too, huh? That was training money well spent.
A Linux server takes me about two hours to build. Configuration is easy, especially if the.conf files are pre-configured in the lab.
Yes, when someone else does the work for you, it typically IS a whole lot easier.
Both types require test lab work to get the proper configuration to include the security profile dialed in. Tightened up for security while letting the proper functions work.
Yup, and how often are you doing this that it takes you so long to build your machines? You do know you can set a default policy and use it on other machines, right? Oh, of course you do, you're an "expert"!
From a security perspective, the Windows servers sit in a tightly restricted DMZ ensconced behind firewalls. E-mail gateways are Linux. Spam filter and Anti-virus are on the Linux gateway. Exchange never sees outside the Intranet.
Yeah, good luck to you with that.
My biggest gripe on Windows servers, I can't strip out all the useless services, dll's and programs that have no business being on a server. Yeah you can disable the service but I prefer not to have it there at all.
Well, then, if that's your biggest gripe the problem isn't with the OS, it's with the user administering them.
Because sometimes...Sometimes it's nice...Sometimes you want
Exactly my point...sometimes. If it's only sometimes, why is it the norm? Wouldn't it make more sense if the OS worked the way you did most times, and could account for the sometimes? Or, does it make more sense that it acts the way you need sometimes...all the time? I was asking for NORMAL occurances, not sometimes.
but M=OS X has had full keyboard access for years
No, it doesn't. Some things can be done with the keyboard, even with Accessibility turned on. Again, some does not equal all.
most menu options in Mac OS X have keyboard shortcuts
I sold my Mac about a year and a half ago, so I won't be checking. However, if there were really that many options that had shortcuts would I be complaining about the lack of them? 10% is not most.
when you're multitasking, you can see everything you need
I don't need to see everything to multitask. The only time I might need to actually see what's not the foreground window is if I need to keep continuous track of what's going on back there, but that's the rare exception. I keep my apps maximized because I want to actually see what's going on in the app I'm using. It makes no sense to have less visibility to an app you're using just so you can see the other app is still there.
No, can't. You can do SOME things with the keyboard by enabling the Accessibility options, but not EVERYTHING. I've owned a Mac, you can't just make stuff up to try and win an argument.
Your use of the term "Mac fanboys" doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that you really tried to learn the Mac. If you like Windows, then don't bother switching and go on your merry way. It's not too hard to come up with a list of criticisms of Windows, however, that make switching worthwhile for a lot of people, even it if takes some time to learn the "Mac way."
Unfortunately, the criticisms typically come from people who don't know what they're talking about. These same people then try switching elsewhere and staying there rather than admit they had made a bad choice. I purchased a Powerbook and used it as my primary, exclusive machine for over a year and still had to fight with it day in and day out. I purchased it to try out some new technology and sold it because it wasn't worth the trouble. I gained nothing but decreased efficiency.
Not that hard to think of some reasons. You might want to look at the contents of one window while typing on the other or easily drag contents from one window to another. You might want to be able to leave a process running in one app and observe its progress while working in another app. Multi-tasking you know.
Okay, now give me reasons that aren't random, individual exceptions. Everything you listed are things that are special occurances and easily (more easily) done on a Windows box than the Mac if for no other reason than the Mac expects these individual, random things to be the norm. I can click one button to give me more space, then one other to take it back fullscreen. On the Mac, I have to click, drag, resize, move, twiddle. Not more convenient in anyway.
Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.
Huh? If I maximized it, it's because there is no whitespace.
Funny, that's how I feel using Windows, since I don't have all the key commands committed to memory. I hardly touch the mouse when using my Mac (something that is important to me due to repetitive stress injury).
I can understand that. It is pretty difficult to remember that Alt-F brings up the File menu, Alt-V the View menu. If only there was a simple mnemonic people could use to remember such things. Or, better yet, somehow indicate the letter you need to press right there in the word on the screen.
Agreed. I just don't get why anyone would prefer Windows, but to each his own.
Yeah, performance, stability, ease of use, security, application availability, flexibility, hardware compatibility. I can see how those would be difficult for someone to get used to coming from the Mac world.
So, I guess the question is...how is the Mac UI better? I hear a lot of Mac fanboys talking about how you have to "unlearn everything from Windows to use a Mac", but no explanation to WHY I'd want to put that much effort into it. Explain to me the benefit of having a million windows open on a screen while you're trying to work on just one. You complain about "space-sucking toolbars", but if you're not maximizing the window anyway, aren't you wasting space? I just don't get it. I had a Mac, I just found it so much more difficult to use because of the UI design. Everything that requires one click or keypress in Windows required clicking all over the screen on the Mac.* In the end, it was the because of the UI that I sold my Mac. Well, that and the abysmal performance, but that's not the issue in question.
*Note: I did not say it took a million keypresses because Apple, in their infinite wisdom, does not offer you the choice of using the keyboard for much more than simply typing. Yes, Apple did research...most people use the mouse almost exclusively. Fuck-a-doodle-do! Most does not equal all, which is why the Windows UI standards state "if you can do it with the mouse, you have to be able to do it with the keyboard". There are glaring exceptions even from MS, such as the tray, but they're the exception. Not the norm.
It's not the stability of their system. It's not it's ease of use.
Yeah, actually, it is both.
Why do you love Windows so much? Explain why it's so much better than Linux and FreeBSD.
For the same reason I stopped being a full-time Unix admin after more than a decade to become a full-time Windows one: I don't want to work that hard. I setup a Windows box, it's up quickly and just works. Unix, fuggedabouded! I now like to smile in project meetings when they ask "How long until these servers are online" and the Unix guys give responses in weeks and I talk hours. Oddly, they never seem to notice that when a portion of a distributed app goes down, it's invariably the Unix box (unless we made the mistake of buying a Dell, of course.: ) For those that know what they're doing, Windows is more {stable, secure, better performing, easier to use} than the "alternate" OSes. We generally sit back and laugh at posts like this and wonder how it is that someone so completely lacking in computer skills that they think Windows isn't any of the above manage to get a post up on Slashdot. We pity you, to be sure, but do derive a lot of laughs from you, too.
We shouldn't have to sell "free" to you.
You do if it ends up costing me more than money....
And, yes, Unixers that goes for you, too. You're going to meet four kinds of people in IT. The first is the "Old-Timer". You can usually tell these people pretty easily because they're still running Unix (or Netware!). Most of them have never once sat in front of a machine running Windows, but can tell you point-by-point every single thing that's wrong with the OS, most of which is gathered from reading self-appointed pundits in the media or from talking with their cronies, none of whom have sat in front of a Windows box either. These guys (this isn't a sexist statement, ladies. There weren't many in the IT field 20-30 years ago, so your chances of meeting an old-timer with a vagina are very slim) can't even begin to fathom why you need more than two colors on a screen (green & black) or why you'd want to use a mouse to do ANYTHING. Oh, and Vax rules. They claim to be the most technologically advanced of the people in the field, and perhaps 20 years ago they were. However, times changed...they didn't. Can't you just smell the vitriol?
Secondly, we have the newbies. This is generally anyone who entered the field after 1995. The first OS they ever used was Windows 95, so they don't even know there's a command line, even in modern day incarnations of Windows. They'll drone on and on about the insecurity or instability of Windows because they can't manage to keep their machines in a usable state for more than five minutes. And, since the majority of people have the same problem, it must be the OS. They know slightly more than users, so it couldn't possibly be them. These folks are typically divided further into two groups: Linux users and Morons.
Morons are distinguishable because they'll say things like "Ugh, I hate the registry, it's too complex and it gets corrupted all the time!" or "Your machine bluescreened? That's MS way of telling you it's been more than five minutes since you rebooted. Hardy-har-har" or my favorite "It's probably a virus". They're often described by their friends and families as someone "who's good with computers". If they answer no to either of the following questions, you know you're dealing with a moron: "Is Windows stable?", "Is Windows secure?" Hit them on the head with your keyboard and ask to see someone who knows what they're doing.
The Linux sub genus of newbies will generally identify themselves pretty quickly. They're strangely proud to admit how ignorant they are, probably because they've managed to figure out a way to blame all of their problems on Mr. Gates. They lose sleep over it, they continually ponder it, they proclaim it loudly to anyone with ears. In the same breath, they'll describe Windows as a "Fisher-price" OS, then tell you how they couldn't figure it out. Granted, they think they're telling you that there's nothing to figure out, but those of us in the know smile knowingly and don't mention the pity we have for them. Ironically, Penguinheads are usually very intelligent people. They've just failed to resist the hive mentality of the Morons. While they're smart enough to figure things out on their own, they don't bother to and just fall prey to the rhetoric. Then they call anyone who prefers Windows a shill or automaton and complain loudly how they make so little in comparison because they "chose" to use an alternate OS.
Note: members of all three of the above do share a common trait: they all regularly work more than 40 hours per week. They're so bad at what they do that it takes them a long time to do it. To paraphrase a quote I once read: "Show me an IT person who regularly works more than 40 hours a week, and I'll show you an IT person that needs to be flipping burgers." The IT industry's purpose is to make companies and people more efficient. It's there to allow people to produce more output with less input. If you can't accomplish that for yourself, how in the hell are you supposed to accomplish it for thousands of users? This trait's often hard to distinguish because they've gotten real
But if you objectivly look at it from what was known then, how would you read it?
I would read it as "hmmm..here comes the head of the CIA. That would be a man who didn't get to his job easily, he must have SOME idea of what he's talking about. Wonder what he has to say?" And then, microseconds after hearing what he had to say I'd say "hmmmm...this man who knows more about this subject than I do believes there's something to this. I believe I should look into this further." Instead, what happened to Tenet he was ushered out the door by politicians who couldn't detect their colons if their heads weren't up their asses. LEADERS understand that the people who work for them are doing the jobs they can't do because they don't have the specialized skills needed. They then understand that when one of those people has an issue, even if they can't describe exactly what the problem is or might be, they should at least be taken seriously. Should they have mobilized the military? Probably not, but perhaps helping the guy get a better grasp on the picture might help or even having another meeting with more people who could help clear up the picture?
Since the follow up question is going to be "so what would you have done??", I'll answer in advance: I don't know. I'm no expert on national security or such. But, I can tell you exactly who I'd go to if I had a question on the subject and ask what HE'D do......
Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available,
Retort: In other words, vote in the lesser of two evils. Sorry, I'm doing that. I'm done with voting against people, I want to vote FOR someone for a change. Granted, despite my revulsion, this November I will be pulling the big, blue handle only. This November, we NEED to get the taliban out of office. I can't stand the other side, but they're without any shade of doubt the WORST of the two Evils (with a capital "E"). After that, we need to start working away from the two-party system we've inflicted on ourselves. Neither "side" represents my voice anymore, and I'm tired of listening to theirs. You wanna go on and keep plugging away at hiring stupider and more evil representatives, then I say you're getting exactly who should be representing you.
Agreed. My team supports a farm of 800+ Windows boxes, and we have significantly higher uptimes than the *nix team's 700+ boxes. Which is probably why they're down from 1100, and we're up from 600. And, yes, the math is right. We were able to consolidate a large number of the *nix boxes down to fewer Windows boxes.
As others have pointed out, you are the exception, rather than the norm. I believe you might even find you're the exception at RIT, too. While I attended UR, I had many friends at RIT who shared similar circumstances. Specifically, we had professors who insisted on specific versions of books only. The next to worst were those who didn't let you know what the requirements were until the first class, so in most cases you had to RUN to the bookstore after class in hopes of catching one of the few used books that were available. The worst, for whom I reserve a special place in hell, are those who insisted you purchase THEIR book....and then it wasn't used in the class.
As I've already explained to you, your drunk driving analogy sucks. Drop it. It has no relevance. Read up on tort law if you still don't understand why. Employment termination is not a tort.
And, as I explained, it does have relevance, specifically because it's different from employment termination. The results are the same, the punishments are not.
What, exactly, is "voluntary slavery?" This is not a concept that I am familiar with, and my dictionary claims that "voluntary" is the very antithesis of "slavery". Perhaps I need a new dictionary.
Or, an encyclopedia. Try looking up the Romans, they had voluntary slaves. They sold themselves to the upper class because they had no other choice. It was either that, or die of starvation. Funny how everything comes around full circle, isn't it?
No.
Did you EVER have to take a drug test for a job? If not, then I can understand why you have no concept of what I'm talking about.
Someone would purchase my urine for $30? Clearly, I need a career change. Water is very cheap these days.
If you want a job, you have to have clean urine. Problem is, drug tests can't tell an employer when you did them. If you did them at home, then it's none of their business. Period. If you're doing them at the office, then your previous employer will tell them. It's really that simple.
Don't sign it. Negotiate.
Oh, well, sure. Huh, the answer was so simple, I completely overlooked it. Oh, wait, that's not an option, because the guy in line behind you will happily sign. Better yet, go elsewhere, it's not long before it'll be mandatory pretty much everywhere. Better one: have you had the joy of having to sign a release allowing the company to do a credit check on you before hiring? Yeah, that's another new low. See, I get it now...you haven't had to deal with these things, have you? Congratulations, you've managed to find the one company on the planet that isn't doing it....yet. Give it time. Pre-employment drug screenings used to be relatively rare, now they're the norm. Credit checks are becoming the norm, too. You apparently need to get out there and see what's going on.
I ban smoking in my rental properties. Smokers are not a protected class. Not sure what this has to do with getting fired, but whatever.
When you get fired from your job for smoking at home, it has a lot to do with it. It's not about being a protected class, it's about companies firing you for SMOKING IN YOUR OWN HOME! Not at work, not at company functions, not at the bar down the street after work...at home. You're more than welcome to ban smokers in your rental properties, I'd do the same. You can't ban me from smoking in my own house, though, can you? My employer can.
There are other companies to work for.
No, there's not. I don't know what country you live in, but employment ain't a happenin' thing here in the states right now.
I dunno. I charge my residents for replacement keys. Why not make the clumsy employee purchase a new tag? Probably will be the last time he loses it.
And, if they implant the RFID tag, they don't have to worry about it from day one, do they?
Since you talk about overhearing managers talk about firing someone for having a kid
I didn't "overhear" it, I was talking with the manager directly.
Why not? Me, I could never do that. I wouldn't want to go home one day and wonder why my daughter is suddenly 10 years older.
Fantastic, he rolled the dice and won. That happens. You can also roll the dice and lose. That happens, too. It's called business, and no one's debating that it's part of life. Fact is, it's rolling the dice that used to make going to work fun. Problem is, companies don't play dice anymore, they play russian rulette with a six-shooter. They also like to fill all the barrels. Wanna watch your daughter grow up?
Slashdot Mirror
That didn't take long before the typical response "if you strip out all of the functionality that makes it even close to being as usable as Windows, you'll find it's a whole lot faster!" Tell you what, you provide me with all of the functionality AND make it faster than Windows, we'll take another look. 'til then, we'll stick with what works.
1. performance: Sorry, my little G4 Mac mini has a more responsive desktop then my Core 2 Duo Windows machine. Granted, there are plenty of areas where Windows has the OBVIOUS performance advantage, but it's not exactly all encompassing on either platform.
It's not easy to make a point when you start out by just out and out lying. Even the other Mac-pro fellow admitted that the G4 generation struggled to keep up with the Intel processors of the time. My performance comparisons were based on a G4 1.33Ghz w/ 1G RAM compared to a 1Ghz P3 with 256M of RAM. The Mac couldn't keep up on ANY task.
2. stability: I'm sorry, did you say stability? *My* Windows machine is stable, but I know what I'm doing. My dad's/uncle's/grandfather's machines are not quite the same story. My mom's Mac on the other hand... I never get "the phone call" that all of us people who are the "family tech" get. Sorry, Macs and Linux have got Windows pwned hands down here. I'm not saying Windows can't be stable, but to say that stability is something foreign to a Mac user, especially of the OS X generation, is a joke. If you were a Linux user I could take you seriously, but I mean... Windows? Stability? Ha!
Considering how often I had to force quit applications or pull the battery just to get the Mac to restart, I'd have to disagree with you there. The fact that your families computers aren't stable is indicative of YOUR problem, not theirs. True, the average person who takes a computer home is going to have tons of stability problems, but that's regardless of the OS. Which is why I don't include average users in my comparisons.
3. ease of use: A bit subjective, but my mom, aunt, 2 clients and sister-in-law imply that Macs have the advantage there too.
And, the 90% of the rest of use who use Windows disagree with you.
4. security: Hahahahahaha. Somehow, after the "stability" statement, I knew you were going to say this. And like stable, Windows CAN BE secure. Just stop using IE and get a third party browser and a third party mail app. Oh, and while you're at it, try making it easy for the average joe to NOT run as an administrator. Sorry, Windows, out of the box, is the horse's ass of security.
Okay, so you know some of the basics of how to make a machine secure, why don't you do it? My family's boxes all follow what you've laid out (and then some, of course), and I never get any calls, either.
5. application availability: See, if you had just stuck to things like this, where Windows is the clear king, it'd be easy for me to take you seriously.
Okay, so I'll try to keep it simple so you can keep up.
6. flexibility: Unless your definition of "flexible" means "I can do a lot because of my app selection and hardware" and not "my OS is teh UBER customizer!" there's nothing more inherently flexible in Windows than a Mac. And for pure GUI flexibility, Linux is king.
Linux is TOO flexible to be usable by the general masses. My point was that Windows can be used (in the hands of someone who's competent) in any capacity, unlike OSX.
Mac fanboys are annoying. But really, fanboys are annoying, even you Windows types.
I'm not a fanboy, just trying to educate the ignorant masses. The IT industry is filled with people like you and I've made it my mission to educate you or get you the fuck out. I'm tired of dealing with ignorant end-users like you.
No, we just know better. Most people I've met who speak as you and the parent are usually quite ignorant of the facts. They exist in their own little worlds and strive hard to prove to other that their justification for choosing an alternate OS is valid and not just based on pure ignorance. Just because slashdotters think Windows is unstable and insecure doesn't make it so. In fact, I've found that if a slashdotter says it can't be done, just means they have no idea how to do it. It's a sad little community of the clueless at this site, that's for sure.
Its the creation of the specific policy profiles for each configuration that takes the time. The actual type security config, once built takes no time to apply. But, then again, you probably just use the unpatched out of the box configuration, one size fits all, with servers owned within 20 minutes. Hate to be in your company....
It's safe to say with your answer above you wouldn't have even gotten past the first interview, so I wouldn't worry about it. Learn a little bit more about what you're doing and why I think it's taking you far too long to deploy a Windows box and maybe you'll understand. I give you credit, you're closer to having a clue than most I've met on slashdot.
Its called reducing the vulnerability footprint.
Yes, and you've admitted you don't know how to do it. You've complained that it can't be done, despite the fact that it can. My point is that all the reasons you've said you use Linux are the reasons we use Windows to do those jobs.
No, but the vast majority of entries I actually use do have shortcuts.
Well, as long as your needs are covered, I guess it's ok.
Mac OS X has a task bar? Are you posting from an alternate universe or something?
Sorry, menu bar.
Wanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.
Huh? So, you tell me a bunch of examples that happen only sometimes, then it's the normal behavior? How does that work?
What is it lacking that you need?
Click a menu. Are there shortcuts for every item on that menu? The one next to it? The one next to that?
They're right up in the goddamn menu.
:)
Okay, click a menu. You're telling me that every single entry on that menu has a shortcut? If it does, either you're not running OSX or they made substantive changes in the last year and a half.
Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.
How does the Windows GUI waste space in comparison to the OSX one? At the bottom of my screen, there's a 32 pixel task bar, that's it. OSX has the task bar AND the dock.
Okay. Of course, I have no problem with someone giving the Mac a real shot and not liking it. That's a matter of individual preference.
:)
:) Secondly, if I ever have to reach for the mouse, I'm clicking all over the place, IMO. However, I'll give you one example that drove me insane (and I apologize if I'm not spouting 100% truth. I gave up the Mac over a year and a half ago, so I don't remember every particular) was that I couldn't tab through all fields either in dialogs or web pages. I seem to remember in particular dropdown boxes being a problem. Maybe it was radio buttons. Not sure, but my point was I prefer not to use the mouse when what I'm concentrating on is keyboard-centric such as writing a document or a slashdot reply.
:)
:)
Then, I retract my "fanboy" statement from the last post because a real fanboy would never concede that some people just don't like 'em.
Nice troll. Of course, you missed the point, which was that one does not have to "click all over the place" to get things done on a Mac.
First, the species you're looking for is a "snark". A troll comes from MS and tries to sell you Windows when you don't want it.
Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac.
Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course.
As for the other things, performance is a wash, as it depends on what metric you are using.
For me, the metric was the 1Ghz P3 w/256M of RAM I'd been using for a few years prior to purchasing the Mac which was a 1.33Ghz Powerbook with 1G of RAM. The PC ran circles around the Mac in every app. I actually had to save some larger tasks 'til I went to the office to do on a Windows box. Part of that was that it was a laptop, however, I did spend the extra money to get the 7200RPM 80G drive that was offered just so that performance aspect would be similar.
Of course, more apps are available for Windows overall, but good apps are available on the Mac for most functions, especially what that average user needs.
I won't disagree with you there. Aside from a good mail notification utility, I had equivalents of everything I needed. Some were up to the same tasks, some weren't, some were compensated for by other apps. However, being a geek, there was a huge chasm between what I needed and what I wanted.
If you never bothered to learn them, then yes.
No, that's the kind of thinking I'd expect from the alternate OS crowd. Bitch and complain that Windows works wonky, but it's really the PICNIC. If the shortcuts were there (and there are SOME, but not all things are shortcutted), I would have learned them. But, they're not.
I never have any window that isn't showing everything it can. I only get scrollbars when the content doesn't fit on the screen. Actually seeing what's going on in the app you're using is not a problem--all maximization does that optimization doesn't is fill your screen with blank space.
Then, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.
Uh yeah. I administer both Linux and Windows machines...
.conf files are pre-configured in the lab.
Yes, I can see by the breadth of your knowledge that you do a fine job of it, too...
Using Windows 2003 server a typical web server build with patches takes about 4-5 hours to complete. A SQL DB cluster server pair is about a two day process, if everything works right. Thats with standardized build procedures that were created in a test lab environment. Don't forget the little "gotchas" like programs that require the use of NETBIOS and can't run properly using DNS/ActiveDirectory.
Wow, how could I have been so wrong? You're such a master of Windows! I'll bet you're an MCSE, too, huh? That was training money well spent.
A Linux server takes me about two hours to build. Configuration is easy, especially if the
Yes, when someone else does the work for you, it typically IS a whole lot easier.
Both types require test lab work to get the proper configuration to include the security profile dialed in. Tightened up for security while letting the proper functions work.
Yup, and how often are you doing this that it takes you so long to build your machines? You do know you can set a default policy and use it on other machines, right? Oh, of course you do, you're an "expert"!
From a security perspective, the Windows servers sit in a tightly restricted DMZ ensconced behind firewalls. E-mail gateways are Linux. Spam filter and Anti-virus are on the Linux gateway. Exchange never sees outside the Intranet.
Yeah, good luck to you with that.
My biggest gripe on Windows servers, I can't strip out all the useless services, dll's and programs that have no business being on a server. Yeah you can disable the service but I prefer not to have it there at all.
Well, then, if that's your biggest gripe the problem isn't with the OS, it's with the user administering them.
Because sometimes...Sometimes it's nice...Sometimes you want
Exactly my point...sometimes. If it's only sometimes, why is it the norm? Wouldn't it make more sense if the OS worked the way you did most times, and could account for the sometimes? Or, does it make more sense that it acts the way you need sometimes...all the time? I was asking for NORMAL occurances, not sometimes.
but M=OS X has had full keyboard access for years
No, it doesn't. Some things can be done with the keyboard, even with Accessibility turned on. Again, some does not equal all.
most menu options in Mac OS X have keyboard shortcuts
I sold my Mac about a year and a half ago, so I won't be checking. However, if there were really that many options that had shortcuts would I be complaining about the lack of them? 10% is not most.
when you're multitasking, you can see everything you need
I don't need to see everything to multitask. The only time I might need to actually see what's not the foreground window is if I need to keep continuous track of what's going on back there, but that's the rare exception. I keep my apps maximized because I want to actually see what's going on in the app I'm using. It makes no sense to have less visibility to an app you're using just so you can see the other app is still there.
No, can't. You can do SOME things with the keyboard by enabling the Accessibility options, but not EVERYTHING. I've owned a Mac, you can't just make stuff up to try and win an argument.
Your use of the term "Mac fanboys" doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that you really tried to learn the Mac. If you like Windows, then don't bother switching and go on your merry way. It's not too hard to come up with a list of criticisms of Windows, however, that make switching worthwhile for a lot of people, even it if takes some time to learn the "Mac way."
Unfortunately, the criticisms typically come from people who don't know what they're talking about. These same people then try switching elsewhere and staying there rather than admit they had made a bad choice. I purchased a Powerbook and used it as my primary, exclusive machine for over a year and still had to fight with it day in and day out. I purchased it to try out some new technology and sold it because it wasn't worth the trouble. I gained nothing but decreased efficiency.
Not that hard to think of some reasons. You might want to look at the contents of one window while typing on the other or easily drag contents from one window to another. You might want to be able to leave a process running in one app and observe its progress while working in another app. Multi-tasking you know.
Okay, now give me reasons that aren't random, individual exceptions. Everything you listed are things that are special occurances and easily (more easily) done on a Windows box than the Mac if for no other reason than the Mac expects these individual, random things to be the norm. I can click one button to give me more space, then one other to take it back fullscreen. On the Mac, I have to click, drag, resize, move, twiddle. Not more convenient in anyway.
Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.
Huh? If I maximized it, it's because there is no whitespace.
Funny, that's how I feel using Windows, since I don't have all the key commands committed to memory. I hardly touch the mouse when using my Mac (something that is important to me due to repetitive stress injury).
I can understand that. It is pretty difficult to remember that Alt-F brings up the File menu, Alt-V the View menu. If only there was a simple mnemonic people could use to remember such things. Or, better yet, somehow indicate the letter you need to press right there in the word on the screen.
Agreed. I just don't get why anyone would prefer Windows, but to each his own.
Yeah, performance, stability, ease of use, security, application availability, flexibility, hardware compatibility. I can see how those would be difficult for someone to get used to coming from the Mac world.
Actually, Sugar Tits, the proof is against you.
So, I guess the question is...how is the Mac UI better? I hear a lot of Mac fanboys talking about how you have to "unlearn everything from Windows to use a Mac", but no explanation to WHY I'd want to put that much effort into it. Explain to me the benefit of having a million windows open on a screen while you're trying to work on just one. You complain about "space-sucking toolbars", but if you're not maximizing the window anyway, aren't you wasting space? I just don't get it. I had a Mac, I just found it so much more difficult to use because of the UI design. Everything that requires one click or keypress in Windows required clicking all over the screen on the Mac.* In the end, it was the because of the UI that I sold my Mac. Well, that and the abysmal performance, but that's not the issue in question.
*Note: I did not say it took a million keypresses because Apple, in their infinite wisdom, does not offer you the choice of using the keyboard for much more than simply typing. Yes, Apple did research...most people use the mouse almost exclusively. Fuck-a-doodle-do! Most does not equal all, which is why the Windows UI standards state "if you can do it with the mouse, you have to be able to do it with the keyboard". There are glaring exceptions even from MS, such as the tray, but they're the exception. Not the norm.
It's not the stability of their system. It's not it's ease of use.
Yeah, actually, it is both.
Why do you love Windows so much? Explain why it's so much better than Linux and FreeBSD.
For the same reason I stopped being a full-time Unix admin after more than a decade to become a full-time Windows one: I don't want to work that hard. I setup a Windows box, it's up quickly and just works. Unix, fuggedabouded! I now like to smile in project meetings when they ask "How long until these servers are online" and the Unix guys give responses in weeks and I talk hours. Oddly, they never seem to notice that when a portion of a distributed app goes down, it's invariably the Unix box (unless we made the mistake of buying a Dell, of course.: ) For those that know what they're doing, Windows is more {stable, secure, better performing, easier to use} than the "alternate" OSes. We generally sit back and laugh at posts like this and wonder how it is that someone so completely lacking in computer skills that they think Windows isn't any of the above manage to get a post up on Slashdot. We pity you, to be sure, but do derive a lot of laughs from you, too.
We shouldn't have to sell "free" to you.
You do if it ends up costing me more than money....
And, yes, Unixers that goes for you, too. You're going to meet four kinds of people in IT. The first is the "Old-Timer". You can usually tell these people pretty easily because they're still running Unix (or Netware!). Most of them have never once sat in front of a machine running Windows, but can tell you point-by-point every single thing that's wrong with the OS, most of which is gathered from reading self-appointed pundits in the media or from talking with their cronies, none of whom have sat in front of a Windows box either. These guys (this isn't a sexist statement, ladies. There weren't many in the IT field 20-30 years ago, so your chances of meeting an old-timer with a vagina are very slim) can't even begin to fathom why you need more than two colors on a screen (green & black) or why you'd want to use a mouse to do ANYTHING. Oh, and Vax rules. They claim to be the most technologically advanced of the people in the field, and perhaps 20 years ago they were. However, times changed...they didn't. Can't you just smell the vitriol?
Secondly, we have the newbies. This is generally anyone who entered the field after 1995. The first OS they ever used was Windows 95, so they don't even know there's a command line, even in modern day incarnations of Windows. They'll drone on and on about the insecurity or instability of Windows because they can't manage to keep their machines in a usable state for more than five minutes. And, since the majority of people have the same problem, it must be the OS. They know slightly more than users, so it couldn't possibly be them. These folks are typically divided further into two groups: Linux users and Morons.
Morons are distinguishable because they'll say things like "Ugh, I hate the registry, it's too complex and it gets corrupted all the time!" or "Your machine bluescreened? That's MS way of telling you it's been more than five minutes since you rebooted. Hardy-har-har" or my favorite "It's probably a virus". They're often described by their friends and families as someone "who's good with computers". If they answer no to either of the following questions, you know you're dealing with a moron: "Is Windows stable?", "Is Windows secure?" Hit them on the head with your keyboard and ask to see someone who knows what they're doing.
The Linux sub genus of newbies will generally identify themselves pretty quickly. They're strangely proud to admit how ignorant they are, probably because they've managed to figure out a way to blame all of their problems on Mr. Gates. They lose sleep over it, they continually ponder it, they proclaim it loudly to anyone with ears. In the same breath, they'll describe Windows as a "Fisher-price" OS, then tell you how they couldn't figure it out. Granted, they think they're telling you that there's nothing to figure out, but those of us in the know smile knowingly and don't mention the pity we have for them. Ironically, Penguinheads are usually very intelligent people. They've just failed to resist the hive mentality of the Morons. While they're smart enough to figure things out on their own, they don't bother to and just fall prey to the rhetoric. Then they call anyone who prefers Windows a shill or automaton and complain loudly how they make so little in comparison because they "chose" to use an alternate OS.
Note: members of all three of the above do share a common trait: they all regularly work more than 40 hours per week. They're so bad at what they do that it takes them a long time to do it. To paraphrase a quote I once read: "Show me an IT person who regularly works more than 40 hours a week, and I'll show you an IT person that needs to be flipping burgers." The IT industry's purpose is to make companies and people more efficient. It's there to allow people to produce more output with less input. If you can't accomplish that for yourself, how in the hell are you supposed to accomplish it for thousands of users? This trait's often hard to distinguish because they've gotten real
The page ain't loadin' for me, and it's not in cache yet. Is Stevie "Kill Creek" Case on the list?
But if you objectivly look at it from what was known then, how would you read it?
I would read it as "hmmm..here comes the head of the CIA. That would be a man who didn't get to his job easily, he must have SOME idea of what he's talking about. Wonder what he has to say?" And then, microseconds after hearing what he had to say I'd say "hmmmm...this man who knows more about this subject than I do believes there's something to this. I believe I should look into this further." Instead, what happened to Tenet he was ushered out the door by politicians who couldn't detect their colons if their heads weren't up their asses. LEADERS understand that the people who work for them are doing the jobs they can't do because they don't have the specialized skills needed. They then understand that when one of those people has an issue, even if they can't describe exactly what the problem is or might be, they should at least be taken seriously. Should they have mobilized the military? Probably not, but perhaps helping the guy get a better grasp on the picture might help or even having another meeting with more people who could help clear up the picture?
Since the follow up question is going to be "so what would you have done??", I'll answer in advance: I don't know. I'm no expert on national security or such. But, I can tell you exactly who I'd go to if I had a question on the subject and ask what HE'D do......
Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available,
Retort: In other words, vote in the lesser of two evils. Sorry, I'm doing that. I'm done with voting against people, I want to vote FOR someone for a change. Granted, despite my revulsion, this November I will be pulling the big, blue handle only. This November, we NEED to get the taliban out of office. I can't stand the other side, but they're without any shade of doubt the WORST of the two Evils (with a capital "E"). After that, we need to start working away from the two-party system we've inflicted on ourselves. Neither "side" represents my voice anymore, and I'm tired of listening to theirs. You wanna go on and keep plugging away at hiring stupider and more evil representatives, then I say you're getting exactly who should be representing you.
Agreed. My team supports a farm of 800+ Windows boxes, and we have significantly higher uptimes than the *nix team's 700+ boxes. Which is probably why they're down from 1100, and we're up from 600. And, yes, the math is right. We were able to consolidate a large number of the *nix boxes down to fewer Windows boxes.
I actually had one that had questions on the tests for which the information only came from his book. He'd then score those questions at like 20-25%.
As others have pointed out, you are the exception, rather than the norm. I believe you might even find you're the exception at RIT, too. While I attended UR, I had many friends at RIT who shared similar circumstances. Specifically, we had professors who insisted on specific versions of books only. The next to worst were those who didn't let you know what the requirements were until the first class, so in most cases you had to RUN to the bookstore after class in hopes of catching one of the few used books that were available. The worst, for whom I reserve a special place in hell, are those who insisted you purchase THEIR book....and then it wasn't used in the class.
As I've already explained to you, your drunk driving analogy sucks. Drop it. It has no relevance. Read up on tort law if you still don't understand why. Employment termination is not a tort.
And, as I explained, it does have relevance, specifically because it's different from employment termination. The results are the same, the punishments are not.
What, exactly, is "voluntary slavery?" This is not a concept that I am familiar with, and my dictionary claims that "voluntary" is the very antithesis of "slavery". Perhaps I need a new dictionary.
Or, an encyclopedia. Try looking up the Romans, they had voluntary slaves. They sold themselves to the upper class because they had no other choice. It was either that, or die of starvation. Funny how everything comes around full circle, isn't it?
No.
Did you EVER have to take a drug test for a job? If not, then I can understand why you have no concept of what I'm talking about.
Someone would purchase my urine for $30? Clearly, I need a career change. Water is very cheap these days.
If you want a job, you have to have clean urine. Problem is, drug tests can't tell an employer when you did them. If you did them at home, then it's none of their business. Period. If you're doing them at the office, then your previous employer will tell them. It's really that simple.
Don't sign it. Negotiate.
Oh, well, sure. Huh, the answer was so simple, I completely overlooked it. Oh, wait, that's not an option, because the guy in line behind you will happily sign. Better yet, go elsewhere, it's not long before it'll be mandatory pretty much everywhere. Better one: have you had the joy of having to sign a release allowing the company to do a credit check on you before hiring? Yeah, that's another new low. See, I get it now...you haven't had to deal with these things, have you? Congratulations, you've managed to find the one company on the planet that isn't doing it....yet. Give it time. Pre-employment drug screenings used to be relatively rare, now they're the norm. Credit checks are becoming the norm, too. You apparently need to get out there and see what's going on.
I ban smoking in my rental properties. Smokers are not a protected class. Not sure what this has to do with getting fired, but whatever.
When you get fired from your job for smoking at home, it has a lot to do with it. It's not about being a protected class, it's about companies firing you for SMOKING IN YOUR OWN HOME! Not at work, not at company functions, not at the bar down the street after work...at home. You're more than welcome to ban smokers in your rental properties, I'd do the same. You can't ban me from smoking in my own house, though, can you? My employer can.
There are other companies to work for.
No, there's not. I don't know what country you live in, but employment ain't a happenin' thing here in the states right now.
I dunno. I charge my residents for replacement keys. Why not make the clumsy employee purchase a new tag? Probably will be the last time he loses it.
And, if they implant the RFID tag, they don't have to worry about it from day one, do they?
Since you talk about overhearing managers talk about firing someone for having a kid
I didn't "overhear" it, I was talking with the manager directly.
Why not? Me, I could never do that. I wouldn't want to go home one day and wonder why my daughter is suddenly 10 years older.
Fantastic, he rolled the dice and won. That happens. You can also roll the dice and lose. That happens, too. It's called business, and no one's debating that it's part of life. Fact is, it's rolling the dice that used to make going to work fun. Problem is, companies don't play dice anymore, they play russian rulette with a six-shooter. They also like to fill all the barrels. Wanna watch your daughter grow up?