The army uses toughbooks when not on the front line. There ARE special laptops which are horrid to use, have the worst rubber keyboards and impossible to use d-pad mouse controllers and weigh a tonne. They're fairly splash proof and you can drop them as much as you want without a problem. Toughbooks are just not that robust, they're splashproof (sort of) and mostly used on a desk rather than in the field, dropping them isn't adviasble.
Opera has a free version with ad support (text based google ads that are very small) and also someone above said, you can get a liscense for free from opera for many many causes (such as being a web developer) through their donations page.
Its free if you have google ads enabled, which take up less space than the status bar and contain no images (just text ads). Otherwise it's still very cheap considering how good it is.
Rant at other people complaining about it not being free:
Just because IE is free and open source doesn't have a choice doesn't mean that something you have to pay for is not worth paying for. If this held true why would anyone use any peice of software that had a free alternative? I'm not saying that Mozilla or Firefox aren't good, but I am saying Opera offers something for a price that some people will be willing to pay (or live with the non intrusive text ads).
So are you saying that I should be stating you are true? If someone spends 2 weeks trying to figure something out the chances are they're going to have read a hell of a lot of relevant info.
No one ever said that Windows was well documented, and this wasn't a Windows vs Linux issue. The same rules apply to programs being developed for Windows as well. And as a matter of fact I do beleive that setting up cross platform networking should be easy, how else are we going to move people to Linux, make things harder? I don't write documentation because I'm not a developer and I haven't a clue how it works. I'd be more inclined to post in a forum, that way everyone still benefits from the solution to a problem.
Now you are suggesting that the parent is illeterate and therefore should not be catered for.
ah, but simple stupid with the option of being flexiable. Hide the things from users who don't care or wouldn't ever look , but make an experienced user easily aware of the flexiability, or at least document the advanced options that most people will never need to see. MAking something simple doesn't mean crippling it, it just means abstracting the details away, make them accessable still (if required).
The parent was saying that he'd tried for two weeks to solve his problem, and that he'd tried to get help on forums. What I'm saying is that the questions he asks or problems he has need to be documented, which there are not, or are hidden because the user couldn't find the solution in two weeks. What I object to is people making statements like "the documentation is fine, the user must be stupid". If you'd read my post you would realise that is the point I am making, not that you havent solved the parent's problem (he wasn't asking anyone to do this, he was commenting that he failed to find a solution because the documentation wasn;t sufficient). So don't say the documentation is fine if REAL users have problems that can't be resolved my reading it, this explicitly implies that the documentation has a problem or is incomplete.
Yeah I hate LinOS too;) I just made it up quickly. "Linux Desktop" sounds much better and can be marketed as the desktop version of linux. Like Windows Server and Windows XP. Perhaps also brand all server distros as "Linux Server". Making the clear divide between the "harc0re" linux and the easy and user friendly desktop edition. Of course this means that the "Linux Desktop" name has to be associated ONLY with the distros that are easy to use and can work flawlessly without EVER seeing a command window. Start associating "Linux Desktop" with recompiling the kernel and crap like that then the whole idea goes to pot.
Its a mess because Microsoft have made it that way, not only by making stupidly incomptiable versions of smb across the different windows OS but also having a horrid protocol. I think I read somewhere that its going to be re-written from scratch for Longhorn (i.e. completly new and nothing like the pile of crap it is atmo)
Thats what I'm saying, and most people associate that name with a complex and hard to use elite OS that only their cousin uses in his dark basement to run green and black versions of pong whilst hacking the internet.
That is also why I said chaning the name of Linux to something else would probably be a benefit in the desktop sector (not in server sector). E.g. LinOS (and call ALL distros this. e.g. LinOS: Mandrake) This way there is a consistant name that describes desktop Linux distros that don't have the stigma of Linux. A fresh start is in order.
This is the attitude that causes so many problems for new users to Linux. People assume that the exsisting documentation and HOWTOs are fine because they understand them and can set up the thing in question without a problem. You are not listening to a REAL user who has REAL problems. This is the aim of this project, to get away from the notion that just because some document already explains it, that is enough. It's called User Testing, and it is something that more Linux projects need to do.
The problem is that there is no "Linux" operating system, there is just the Linux kernel, which is such an un-userfriendly thing (i.e. most Windows user don't know what a kernel is). I agree that Linux needs to be a name associated with an Operating System, like Linspire (Lindows). Linspire is probably the first distribution of linux i've seen that is taking the right approach to desktop market penetration. Most people think Linux is a server thingymabaob thats too complex for them to understand (perhaps ditching Linux as a name would be a smart move? call all distros a new name LinOS)
I have to admit, a LOT of linux programs I have tried using and projects that I've seen have some of the worst documentation I;ve ever seen. Usually going something like "Do A, then B will be ready" when in fact there is so crucial step to get "B" ready that it is assumed the user will just "know". Most the time this leads to hours of IRC in some remote channel where most the people there are afk for 23 out of 24 hours.
I agree that user should be capable of updating their systems, if they can't then the system needs to do it for them. The problem is that if you are running a custom Linux or you've changed something somwhere, update tools like apt and Emerge can go totally wrong. I've never seen this issue with Windows, I guess this is the price we pay for having an Operating System that is so customisable, it breaks compatability and standards too easily.
It's people like you that are holding Linux back and out of the desktop market. You cannot assume that everyone who wants to use linux must be able to know how to recompile a kernel or even how to compile any progem. If Microsoft issued updates like this how many in their user-base would be able to apply it, no matter how many HOWTOs there were.
I use linux because its stable and does what I want it to, including traffic shaping. I CAN apply patches to the kernel and know how to recompile it. But that does not mean I am an expert at it. Of course, what was I thinking, If I am to use linux then I must be an expert, screw the learning curve I should know it all in 5mins!!
With that attitude how is anyone EVER going to move over to Linux, what about the person that installed linux yesterday to give it a try, are they supposed to know how all this works? I am a student and the houses I serve the internet to are my mates, we had Windows2003 server for a while but it didn't have any traffic shaping. Students tend to love running P2P and sucking bandwidth, so I switched to ClarkConnect and setup a traffic shaping script.
I am sorry for not being as L33T as you, I crumble in your presence. Oh, and thank you for pointing out how much more effort this patch requires than clicking "INSTALL" when windows pops up the dialog asking if you wish to install that update that it automatically downloaded for you, or even the update that it automatically installed for you if you have that option checked.
You completly ignored the whole point of my post and banged on about how I shouldn't be running linux if I can't do xyz, maybe I'll switch back to Win2K3 in that case, I mean, why would you want/more/ people running linux?
The update may be avaliable faster than Windows, but you cannot say that it is/easier/ to apply than a Windows patch. I hate recompiling my kernel, it always takes me a number of attempts until everything works. Also my server is running Linux and is serving two houses of people with net access, I can't just take it down and mess around with it for hours while I have fun trying to get a working kernel. So regardless of when the patch was released I still need to wait until later tonight to apply the patch.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong Wrong Wrong. Take the opposite of your reply and you're close to the truth
You'll never get told about this on a slashdot post, everyone who knows about this will be under the official secrets act.
The army uses toughbooks when not on the front line. There ARE special laptops which are horrid to use, have the worst rubber keyboards and impossible to use d-pad mouse controllers and weigh a tonne. They're fairly splash proof and you can drop them as much as you want without a problem. Toughbooks are just not that robust, they're splashproof (sort of) and mostly used on a desk rather than in the field, dropping them isn't adviasble.
lmao this is so true!
Or .NET for that matter.
expect to see something simliar to that in longhorn, the notification area is getting an overhaul.
Opera has a free version with ad support (text based google ads that are very small) and also someone above said, you can get a liscense for free from opera for many many causes (such as being a web developer) through their donations page.
Its free if you have google ads enabled, which take up less space than the status bar and contain no images (just text ads). Otherwise it's still very cheap considering how good it is.
Rant at other people complaining about it not being free:
Just because IE is free and open source doesn't have a choice doesn't mean that something you have to pay for is not worth paying for. If this held true why would anyone use any peice of software that had a free alternative? I'm not saying that Mozilla or Firefox aren't good, but I am saying Opera offers something for a price that some people will be willing to pay (or live with the non intrusive text ads).
Opera also offeres a very decent alternative to both IE and Mozilla/Firefox.
Hotmail spam protection is actually very good
So are you saying that I should be stating you are true? If someone spends 2 weeks trying to figure something out the chances are they're going to have read a hell of a lot of relevant info.
No one ever said that Windows was well documented, and this wasn't a Windows vs Linux issue. The same rules apply to programs being developed for Windows as well. And as a matter of fact I do beleive that setting up cross platform networking should be easy, how else are we going to move people to Linux, make things harder? I don't write documentation because I'm not a developer and I haven't a clue how it works. I'd be more inclined to post in a forum, that way everyone still benefits from the solution to a problem.
Now you are suggesting that the parent is illeterate and therefore should not be catered for.
ah, but simple stupid with the option of being flexiable. Hide the things from users who don't care or wouldn't ever look , but make an experienced user easily aware of the flexiability, or at least document the advanced options that most people will never need to see. MAking something simple doesn't mean crippling it, it just means abstracting the details away, make them accessable still (if required).
The parent was saying that he'd tried for two weeks to solve his problem, and that he'd tried to get help on forums. What I'm saying is that the questions he asks or problems he has need to be documented, which there are not, or are hidden because the user couldn't find the solution in two weeks. What I object to is people making statements like "the documentation is fine, the user must be stupid". If you'd read my post you would realise that is the point I am making, not that you havent solved the parent's problem (he wasn't asking anyone to do this, he was commenting that he failed to find a solution because the documentation wasn;t sufficient). So don't say the documentation is fine if REAL users have problems that can't be resolved my reading it, this explicitly implies that the documentation has a problem or is incomplete.
Yeah I hate LinOS too ;) I just made it up quickly. "Linux Desktop" sounds much better and can be marketed as the desktop version of linux. Like Windows Server and Windows XP. Perhaps also brand all server distros as "Linux Server". Making the clear divide between the "harc0re" linux and the easy and user friendly desktop edition. Of course this means that the "Linux Desktop" name has to be associated ONLY with the distros that are easy to use and can work flawlessly without EVER seeing a command window. Start associating "Linux Desktop" with recompiling the kernel and crap like that then the whole idea goes to pot.
I agree with this. the KISS approach (Keep it simple stupid) should applied if Linux wants to become a serious desktop OS.
Its a mess because Microsoft have made it that way, not only by making stupidly incomptiable versions of smb across the different windows OS but also having a horrid protocol. I think I read somewhere that its going to be re-written from scratch for Longhorn (i.e. completly new and nothing like the pile of crap it is atmo)
Thats what I'm saying, and most people associate that name with a complex and hard to use elite OS that only their cousin uses in his dark basement to run green and black versions of pong whilst hacking the internet.
That is also why I said chaning the name of Linux to something else would probably be a benefit in the desktop sector (not in server sector). E.g. LinOS (and call ALL distros this. e.g. LinOS: Mandrake) This way there is a consistant name that describes desktop Linux distros that don't have the stigma of Linux. A fresh start is in order.
This is the attitude that causes so many problems for new users to Linux. People assume that the exsisting documentation and HOWTOs are fine because they understand them and can set up the thing in question without a problem. You are not listening to a REAL user who has REAL problems. This is the aim of this project, to get away from the notion that just because some document already explains it, that is enough. It's called User Testing, and it is something that more Linux projects need to do.
The problem is that there is no "Linux" operating system, there is just the Linux kernel, which is such an un-userfriendly thing (i.e. most Windows user don't know what a kernel is). I agree that Linux needs to be a name associated with an Operating System, like Linspire (Lindows). Linspire is probably the first distribution of linux i've seen that is taking the right approach to desktop market penetration. Most people think Linux is a server thingymabaob thats too complex for them to understand (perhaps ditching Linux as a name would be a smart move? call all distros a new name LinOS)
I have to admit, a LOT of linux programs I have tried using and projects that I've seen have some of the worst documentation I;ve ever seen. Usually going something like "Do A, then B will be ready" when in fact there is so crucial step to get "B" ready that it is assumed the user will just "know". Most the time this leads to hours of IRC in some remote channel where most the people there are afk for 23 out of 24 hours.
I agree that user should be capable of updating their systems, if they can't then the system needs to do it for them. The problem is that if you are running a custom Linux or you've changed something somwhere, update tools like apt and Emerge can go totally wrong. I've never seen this issue with Windows, I guess this is the price we pay for having an Operating System that is so customisable, it breaks compatability and standards too easily.
It's people like you that are holding Linux back and out of the desktop market. You cannot assume that everyone who wants to use linux must be able to know how to recompile a kernel or even how to compile any progem. If Microsoft issued updates like this how many in their user-base would be able to apply it, no matter how many HOWTOs there were.
/more/ people running linux?
I use linux because its stable and does what I want it to, including traffic shaping. I CAN apply patches to the kernel and know how to recompile it. But that does not mean I am an expert at it. Of course, what was I thinking, If I am to use linux then I must be an expert, screw the learning curve I should know it all in 5mins!!
With that attitude how is anyone EVER going to move over to Linux, what about the person that installed linux yesterday to give it a try, are they supposed to know how all this works? I am a student and the houses I serve the internet to are my mates, we had Windows2003 server for a while but it didn't have any traffic shaping. Students tend to love running P2P and sucking bandwidth, so I switched to ClarkConnect and setup a traffic shaping script.
I am sorry for not being as L33T as you, I crumble in your presence. Oh, and thank you for pointing out how much more effort this patch requires than clicking "INSTALL" when windows pops up the dialog asking if you wish to install that update that it automatically downloaded for you, or even the update that it automatically installed for you if you have that option checked.
You completly ignored the whole point of my post and banged on about how I shouldn't be running linux if I can't do xyz, maybe I'll switch back to Win2K3 in that case, I mean, why would you want
kthxbye
The update may be avaliable faster than Windows, but you cannot say that it is /easier/ to apply than a Windows patch. I hate recompiling my kernel, it always takes me a number of attempts until everything works. Also my server is running Linux and is serving two houses of people with net access, I can't just take it down and mess around with it for hours while I have fun trying to get a working kernel. So regardless of when the patch was released I still need to wait until later tonight to apply the patch.
oops replied to the main thread not you, look there.