I would have thought they'd have something quick to deploy their OS images. When we deploy RHEL to our servers it's a standard image with optional packages. We use kickstart + puppet. ~35 min to deploy a server, of which about 5 minutes requires user interaction, which decreases (per host) if we do more than one host...
Strange that they need to do extensive testing. RHEL just works...
True, but the issue isn't so much the verifiability as that some people take things on face value because Wikipedia articles are dynamic, and as they can be changed at any time, some people are bound to get incorrect information.
Example: Yesterday I looked up Gerard Butler (not sure how I got there, mostly clicking through) and found out that he was the son of his father (the real one) and King Leonidas. Now my understanding of biology entails a woman being involved (well... generally speaking) so I did not fall for it, and I doubt anyone would. Take however articles about things that people do not know about, cold fusion for instance, and there is ample chance for someone to distort how effective it might be. Reading up on it the other day I was surprised that according to wikipedia they appeared to making headway.
The issue there would be that it could be factually wrong, OR it could have been worded wrong, so by implication. Reading the links that verify it were beyond my immediate interest and left it at that.
The casual reader is unlikely to use Wikipedia as a starting point on casual topics, but as a source. It is unlikely that many will fall and history will be re-written... actually, there is a chance of that...
But you are quite right. Truth is not what wikipedia is about, its a quick source of information. The caveat has to be that it may be a poor source for some topics at some times, and an excellent for others (or the same) at other times.
Not true. What the user expects is not the essence here. The number of available interfaces out there means that no one can say WHAT it is that the user will expect. Windows 3.11 users and Windows 95 users have different expectations. Windows 2000 users have different ones again. XP is different, Apple's different OS versions were different to each other, and OS X is nothing like XP or KDE (or it is... you can configure all of those to some common denominator).
Point is Windows locks you in, others give you choices. You spend enough time on a computer and use KDE all the time. You walk past a Apple shop and decide to give one of their machines a spin, and it isn't a new world. There are differences. But there are differences in how Nokia mobiles operate vs Ericsson and vs Philips etc. You can still use them.
I can't handle the "shade" concept... i know it is there, if i discover what i might use it for, i'll re enable it. in the meantime i configure the window to maximize when i double click it... Does it harm me that option is there? NO. And there are people that no doubt use it.
There is no one true way, Some people use desktop changing at the edge of each desktop as is default in Enlightenment, others don't.
Choice isn't a bad thing, if we didn't like it we might as well pack our linux CDs onto spindle and reinstall "The world according to Microsoft". Surely if you thought there was a right way than you're using MS anyway, because 90% share of desktop market, they MUST be right. But they aren't, You dislike configurability. Get the Sourcecode for your GUI and disable it. Thought that is a choice you have to make.
But the choices existing don't harm you. Of course there is one thing that needs to be ensured, sensible defaults. Or awareness of options. But it is an imperfect universe.
It sounds more like a joke than a real interview. Unless Bill is starting to wanna run for government. Say alot of words, don't answer the question, and don't accept that there is something with your policies
Slashdot Mirror
I would have thought they'd have something quick to deploy their OS images. When we deploy RHEL to our servers it's a standard image with optional packages. We use kickstart + puppet. ~35 min to deploy a server, of which about 5 minutes requires user interaction, which decreases (per host) if we do more than one host... Strange that they need to do extensive testing. RHEL just works...
Yes
True, but the issue isn't so much the verifiability as that some people take things on face value because Wikipedia articles are dynamic, and as they can be changed at any time, some people are bound to get incorrect information.
... generally speaking) so I did not fall for it, and I doubt anyone would. Take however articles about things that people do not know about, cold fusion for instance, and there is ample chance for someone to distort how effective it might be. Reading up on it the other day I was surprised that according to wikipedia they appeared to making headway.
... actually, there is a chance of that...
Example: Yesterday I looked up Gerard Butler (not sure how I got there, mostly clicking through) and found out that he was the son of his father (the real one) and King Leonidas. Now my understanding of biology entails a woman being involved (well
The issue there would be that it could be factually wrong, OR it could have been worded wrong, so by implication. Reading the links that verify it were beyond my immediate interest and left it at that.
The casual reader is unlikely to use Wikipedia as a starting point on casual topics, but as a source. It is unlikely that many will fall and history will be re-written
But you are quite right. Truth is not what wikipedia is about, its a quick source of information. The caveat has to be that it may be a poor source for some topics at some times, and an excellent for others (or the same) at other times.
Interesting point. We might be able to import the game from NZ with greater ease than from the UK then.
Not true. What the user expects is not the essence here. The number of available interfaces out there means that no one can say WHAT it is that the user will expect. Windows 3.11 users and Windows 95 users have different expectations. Windows 2000 users have different ones again. XP is different, Apple's different OS versions were different to each other, and OS X is nothing like XP or KDE (or it is ... you can configure all of those to some common denominator).
... i know it is there, if i discover what i might use it for, i'll re enable it. in the meantime i configure the window to maximize when i double click it ... Does it harm me that option is there? NO. And there are people that no doubt use it.
Point is Windows locks you in, others give you choices. You spend enough time on a computer and use KDE all the time. You walk past a Apple shop and decide to give one of their machines a spin, and it isn't a new world. There are differences. But there are differences in how Nokia mobiles operate vs Ericsson and vs Philips etc. You can still use them.
I can't handle the "shade" concept
There is no one true way, Some people use desktop changing at the edge of each desktop as is default in Enlightenment, others don't.
Choice isn't a bad thing, if we didn't like it we might as well pack our linux CDs onto spindle and reinstall "The world according to Microsoft". Surely if you thought there was a right way than you're using MS anyway, because 90% share of desktop market, they MUST be right. But they aren't, You dislike configurability. Get the Sourcecode for your GUI and disable it. Thought that is a choice you have to make.
But the choices existing don't harm you. Of course there is one thing that needs to be ensured, sensible defaults. Or awareness of options. But it is an imperfect universe.
It sounds more like a joke than a real interview. Unless Bill is starting to wanna run for government. Say alot of words, don't answer the question, and don't accept that there is something with your policies