If I have to read another 1999-era Red Herring/Business 2.0/dot bomb article about how "Netscape Navigator's success was due in large part to it's strong branding effort blah blah blah" I think I'll go freaking nutzo.
Hey, dumbass, I think you already have.
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
Wow, you completely missed the point. Surprise, surprise.
Maybe you want Mozilla to remain in the 0.02% percentile, but the rest of us--that means, the real computing world, not your little IRC Linux buddies--use programs with friendly names. Why? It says a lot about the program and its developers.
1.) It's catchy and stays in people's minds. 2.) It's friendy, therefore relaxing them for their user experience. 3.) It reflects on the attitude of the developers, that they will go the extra effort to concentrate on every detail and not just code up really slow XUL interfaces. Which is why people love interfaces that are colorful and sleek. Because it means the developers go that extra mile to not only provide a product, but provide one that is friendly and looks good.
Get off your high-horse. You're completely retarded. "Aw, man, who cares? Nobody's trying to sell it. Let's just forget about it with the excuse that people who are already using it know how to pronounce it." Yeah, that'll reel in the users for a product we're trying to replace IE with.
The only thing wrong with Mozilla is that people don't know how to pronounce it. Is it like Mod-zilla rhymes with Godzilla, or is it more like Mozzerella, or is it something else entirely?
According to you, it doesn't matter! People using it already know how to pronounce it! Wowee!
Favorites - in Win2K or XP, why can't it just use my IE favorites?
It does. Automatically. It's called "Imported IE Favorites" in your Bookmarks menu.
Feel - face it - mozilla just doesn't "feel" like a Windows program. I can't drag and drop the toolbars around and then lock them down like I can in IE (there might be a way to do it, but I haven't found it).
It's called "Customize Toolbar."
If someone could just make something similar to IE but without all the monopoly shit, millions of PCs could be deployed with a real browser.
And, finally, it's called Opera, and it kicks the SHIT out of the slow, laggy, resource hogs that are Mozilla and Firebird.
PS - a really cool unrelated idea that I have thought of would be a spyware/adware/scumware blocker for non-techies who don't know when to click yes/no.
Well, I noticed a "M$" in there, so I'm sure your post will be immature and baseless. Let's see, shall we?
Sensible? User choice? This is Microsoft you are talking about.
Ah, I know exactly where this is headed.
Remember the company that makes you stick in your orignal CD and reboot if you change your hostname or IP number.
No, I don't remember that. Because it's not true. And never has been. I can only reasonably conclude that you are flat-out lying to push the anti-Microsoft Crusades, because you do not have to insert an original CD and reboot if you change your hostname or IP number.
It's also the company that won't let you store M$ updates locally, so everytime a computer gets adware or virus hosed, you have do download everything all over again but don't give you a choice on which updates you want and stick nasty EULAs in the updates.
Surprise, surprise--another outright falsehood, considering downloaded updates are stored in the WUpdate folder, and even SRS can store them and distribute them to clients on the network.
Of course, there is the instance of "M$," that bastion of 1998-era anti-Microsoft fanaticism that just never stops being clever and funny. Let's see how the rest of this post fares.
We are talking about one paranoid control freak of a company that has demonstrated it could care less about user choice or reason when those things get in the way of user control. When has Microsoft ever made a peer computing modeled product where the end user's machine was an equal player?
Considering most of the world uses Windows on their PCs, I'd say they're the equal players. Microsoft isn't "controlling" mine or anybody else's deskop. It sounds like you're being a ranting paranoid nut for the sake of it.
If there is a way Bill Gates can charge anyone money for the service, you can bet that his software will force the user to pay.
What "service?" How could he "force" anybody to pay anything? Is he going to hold a gun to your head?
A central server completely out of the user's control offered as a "service" to enable this "feature" is very much a possibility.
Oh, I see. You were talking about SRS. Well, you weren't, because you're so ignorant that you didn't know about it and went off on this paranoid lunatic rant, but the general idea of what you're talking about is SRS/IRM, which is a server you set up yourself on the network to handle updates and Information Rights Management.
Now what happens when that central server gets the next Blaster?
Nothing, because it won't. There won't be a next Blaster because that server would either be behind a firewall or be patched months ahead of time like every other sane person was when the government warned them twice to.
Everyone is screwed. Nothing new, It's like hotmail, but they are going to pretend you have some input.
Guess what? You have the choice not to use Hotmail.
moving to 2000 would get me what? a load of hassle to fix my non-existent problems or improve my more than sufficient performance?
It would get you off the DOS kernel, for one, which has no memory management and allows programs to crash each other left and right. The majority of people haven't seen a BSOD since switching to Windows 2000 all those years ago. You would have even less problems and greatly, GREATLY improved performance using the NT kernel.
But hey, stick it out on ME forever.
no thanks. although I know I'll lose loads of 'spect with all teh 1337 h4x0rz, I think WinME is good.
I love that you think it's some 'leet hacker thing to hate Windows ME, when it's really simple facts. If you'd do a Google search, you'll find that Windows ME actually causes more problems if you install it fresh than if you upgrade from 98, a complete reversal of logic. There are major bugs in, for instance, registry handling that have yet to be fixed to this day. I shudder to think of what problems you'll eventually run into from simply running a couple of apps everyday.
Windows ME is merely 98 with a dressed up Explorer shell and System Restore. It's the same kernel yet takes up tons more memory.
Pure FUD. There is no "spyware/controlware" in any version of Microsoft Office.
Then you say there is nothing worth upgrading to new versions of Office. Have fun with your horizontal Outlook preview pane, among other things. Checked out Frontpage 2003 recently and how it generates code as clean as Dreamweaver now? Didn't think so. Can you ctrl-highlight multiple selections of text in Office 2000? Nuh-uh. I could go on forever.
Corporate-owned Slashdot was hoping for another bash-Microsoft fest for page hits, but it turns out people seem to be ever so slightly more rational this time around. It's refreshing.
Actually, it's one of the more pretentious assertations I've seen. What the hell does it mean exactly? It's just some author trying to be clever (and failing).
I'm using Windows XP, and I don't feel like I'm "using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in" on me. I feel like I'm just using my operating system as usual.
Compare the number of Microsoft articles posted this week in comparison to the number of Linux articles.
Do we really need another bash-Microsoft article obsessively dissecting one sentence Bill Gates made at some promotional speech or interview or whatever?
And, as a matter of fact, Linux is the operating system that is most breached on the net--as reported on Slashdot--and you can check my sig and see that dozens upon dozens of patches are released for Linux distro after Linux distro weekly.
Meanwhile, one or two security patches come out on Windows Update and Slashdot reports on it with at least three articles.
Come on. I'm sick of reading about Microsoft on Slashdot. Can we please have more LINUX stories? Isn't this a site that is News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters? I don't come here to watch all the little kiddies jerk off and see who can play "security expert" the best by bashing and bashing and bashing Microsoft.
Well, Slashdot needed Yet Another Patent Story. It doesn't matter if the editor never even dreamed of actually reading the link, and instead inserted such witty banter as "Haha. Patents are funny."
Slashdot is corporate-owned and is all about page hits these days, I'm afraid.
Mod it as troll all you want, moderators, but look at the categories of stories currently on the front page today. Four Microsoft (all flammatory), one Linux.
Does that sound right for a pro-Linux site that's News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters?
P.S. Again, the subject of this article was already being discussed in the last iTunes article. Which is funny, because that last iTunes article was already being discussed in the previous one.
I looked at the Slashdot front page and wondered why there were so many of the typical "bash Microsoft" articles. One of them was about statements Microsoft made about iTunes, a dupe that even almost had the exact same headline word for word as yesterday's! I usually expect this kind of stuff from Slashdot, but it was being heaved on us a little thick (aren't there any interesting Linux articles we could post today? I want to read about Linux, not Microsoft...)
Then I realized today was the day Microsoft Office 2003 was released to retail. It's sad, but it makes sense. Big day for Microsoft, big bashing agenda on Slashdot. Made all the more obvious when you recognize that Slashdot is a corporate-owned entity (amusing, considering all the anti-corporate spiel around these parts).
What the hell happened to Slashdot in the past year? It's been plain awful.
What sort of testing is required just to plug a security hole? What, your network environment was based around that hole?
This is the same argument the people who got hit by Blaster made. I just had to wonder, was their network so precariously designed that a simple ~500kb patch that plugged a tiny DCOM hole would upset the entire balance? I think a lot of sysadmins use the "testing" thing as an excuse to put off installing patches. "Well, everything works right now so I don't really want to mess with it."
Slashdot Mirror
If I have to read another 1999-era Red Herring/Business 2.0/dot bomb article about how "Netscape Navigator's success was due in large part to it's strong branding effort blah blah blah" I think I'll go freaking nutzo.
Hey, dumbass, I think you already have.
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
Wow, you completely missed the point. Surprise, surprise.
Maybe you want Mozilla to remain in the 0.02% percentile, but the rest of us--that means, the real computing world, not your little IRC Linux buddies--use programs with friendly names. Why? It says a lot about the program and its developers.
1.) It's catchy and stays in people's minds.
2.) It's friendy, therefore relaxing them for their user experience.
3.) It reflects on the attitude of the developers, that they will go the extra effort to concentrate on every detail and not just code up really slow XUL interfaces. Which is why people love interfaces that are colorful and sleek. Because it means the developers go that extra mile to not only provide a product, but provide one that is friendly and looks good.
Get off your high-horse. You're completely retarded. "Aw, man, who cares? Nobody's trying to sell it. Let's just forget about it with the excuse that people who are already using it know how to pronounce it." Yeah, that'll reel in the users for a product we're trying to replace IE with.
The only thing wrong with Mozilla is that people don't know how to pronounce it. Is it like Mod-zilla rhymes with Godzilla, or is it more like Mozzerella, or is it something else entirely?
According to you, it doesn't matter! People using it already know how to pronounce it! Wowee!
Wow, misinformed.
Favorites - in Win2K or XP, why can't it just use my IE favorites?
It does. Automatically. It's called "Imported IE Favorites" in your Bookmarks menu.
Feel - face it - mozilla just doesn't "feel" like a Windows program. I can't drag and drop the toolbars around and then lock them down like I can in IE (there might be a way to do it, but I haven't found it).
It's called "Customize Toolbar."
If someone could just make something similar to IE but without all the monopoly shit, millions of PCs could be deployed with a real browser.
And, finally, it's called Opera, and it kicks the SHIT out of the slow, laggy, resource hogs that are Mozilla and Firebird.
PS - a really cool unrelated idea that I have thought of would be a spyware/adware/scumware blocker for non-techies who don't know when to click yes/no.
All the spyware/adware/scumware is for IE.
Next.
Open Office, Star Office and other suites will eventually win over Microsoft Office. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon.
Yeah, just like Linux will "beat Windows on the desktop" soon. The same mantra that's been repeated every year since 1998. Still waiting...
And, yet, it's Slashbots who have bitched for years that Outlook didn't automatically block those attachments in order to stop the spread of worms.
They are damned if they do, damned if they don't around here. It's silly. The Slashbot community needs to grow up.
By the way, you can turn the feature off.
An Information Rights Management server you set up. Come on, this has been discussed endlessly in previous articles. Put down the tinfoil hat.
Well, I noticed a "M$" in there, so I'm sure your post will be immature and baseless. Let's see, shall we?
Sensible? User choice? This is Microsoft you are talking about.
Ah, I know exactly where this is headed.
Remember the company that makes you stick in your orignal CD and reboot if you change your hostname or IP number.
No, I don't remember that. Because it's not true. And never has been. I can only reasonably conclude that you are flat-out lying to push the anti-Microsoft Crusades, because you do not have to insert an original CD and reboot if you change your hostname or IP number.
It's also the company that won't let you store M$ updates locally, so everytime a computer gets adware or virus hosed, you have do download everything all over again but don't give you a choice on which updates you want and stick nasty EULAs in the updates.
Surprise, surprise--another outright falsehood, considering downloaded updates are stored in the WUpdate folder, and even SRS can store them and distribute them to clients on the network.
Of course, there is the instance of "M$," that bastion of 1998-era anti-Microsoft fanaticism that just never stops being clever and funny. Let's see how the rest of this post fares.
We are talking about one paranoid control freak of a company that has demonstrated it could care less about user choice or reason when those things get in the way of user control. When has Microsoft ever made a peer computing modeled product where the end user's machine was an equal player?
Considering most of the world uses Windows on their PCs, I'd say they're the equal players. Microsoft isn't "controlling" mine or anybody else's deskop. It sounds like you're being a ranting paranoid nut for the sake of it.
If there is a way Bill Gates can charge anyone money for the service, you can bet that his software will force the user to pay.
What "service?" How could he "force" anybody to pay anything? Is he going to hold a gun to your head?
A central server completely out of the user's control offered as a "service" to enable this "feature" is very much a possibility.
Oh, I see. You were talking about SRS. Well, you weren't, because you're so ignorant that you didn't know about it and went off on this paranoid lunatic rant, but the general idea of what you're talking about is SRS/IRM, which is a server you set up yourself on the network to handle updates and Information Rights Management.
Now what happens when that central server gets the next Blaster?
Nothing, because it won't. There won't be a next Blaster because that server would either be behind a firewall or be patched months ahead of time like every other sane person was when the government warned them twice to.
Everyone is screwed. Nothing new, It's like hotmail, but they are going to pretend you have some input.
Guess what? You have the choice not to use Hotmail.
Next.
When I want something that doesn't take 20 seconds to load up, only for it to crash on me when I change fonts, I'll use OpenOffice.
When I want something that literally loads in seconds, takes up FAR less memory and space, and is compatible with all documents, I'll use Office 2003.
I think your post had a randomly generated statistic factor of 74.2, with a usefullness of 0.3 gigaquads.
moving to 2000 would get me what? a load of hassle to fix my non-existent problems or improve my more than sufficient performance?
It would get you off the DOS kernel, for one, which has no memory management and allows programs to crash each other left and right. The majority of people haven't seen a BSOD since switching to Windows 2000 all those years ago. You would have even less problems and greatly, GREATLY improved performance using the NT kernel.
But hey, stick it out on ME forever.
no thanks. although I know I'll lose loads of 'spect with all teh 1337 h4x0rz, I think WinME is good.
I love that you think it's some 'leet hacker thing to hate Windows ME, when it's really simple facts. If you'd do a Google search, you'll find that Windows ME actually causes more problems if you install it fresh than if you upgrade from 98, a complete reversal of logic. There are major bugs in, for instance, registry handling that have yet to be fixed to this day. I shudder to think of what problems you'll eventually run into from simply running a couple of apps everyday.
Windows ME is merely 98 with a dressed up Explorer shell and System Restore. It's the same kernel yet takes up tons more memory.
Pure FUD. There is no "spyware/controlware" in any version of Microsoft Office.
Then you say there is nothing worth upgrading to new versions of Office. Have fun with your horizontal Outlook preview pane, among other things. Checked out Frontpage 2003 recently and how it generates code as clean as Dreamweaver now? Didn't think so. Can you ctrl-highlight multiple selections of text in Office 2000? Nuh-uh. I could go on forever.
Wow! You used a version of Word over 6 years old and found problems in editing the document!
Because Word 97 sucked, that means all of Microsoft Office 2003 is "terrible!"
Oh, you mean Linux? Nobody uses "GNU/Linux," they just use Linux. And they may or may not use GNU userland tools on top of it.
Corporate-owned Slashdot was hoping for another bash-Microsoft fest for page hits, but it turns out people seem to be ever so slightly more rational this time around. It's refreshing.
Actually, it's one of the more pretentious assertations I've seen. What the hell does it mean exactly? It's just some author trying to be clever (and failing).
I'm using Windows XP, and I don't feel like I'm "using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in" on me. I feel like I'm just using my operating system as usual.
Is that all Linux desktops are? Dumping grounds for poorly implemented features stolen from other operating systems?
I'd rather KDE invented its own innovation for a change. Slicker, so far, is the only project I've seen that could be considered in that realm.
Hello, it's a clever troll.
Compare the number of Microsoft articles posted this week in comparison to the number of Linux articles.
Do we really need another bash-Microsoft article obsessively dissecting one sentence Bill Gates made at some promotional speech or interview or whatever?
And, as a matter of fact, Linux is the operating system that is most breached on the net--as reported on Slashdot--and you can check my sig and see that dozens upon dozens of patches are released for Linux distro after Linux distro weekly.
Meanwhile, one or two security patches come out on Windows Update and Slashdot reports on it with at least three articles.
Come on. I'm sick of reading about Microsoft on Slashdot. Can we please have more LINUX stories? Isn't this a site that is News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters? I don't come here to watch all the little kiddies jerk off and see who can play "security expert" the best by bashing and bashing and bashing Microsoft.
Well, Slashdot needed Yet Another Patent Story. It doesn't matter if the editor never even dreamed of actually reading the link, and instead inserted such witty banter as "Haha. Patents are funny."
Slashdot is corporate-owned and is all about page hits these days, I'm afraid.
Mod it as troll all you want, moderators, but look at the categories of stories currently on the front page today. Four Microsoft (all flammatory), one Linux.
Does that sound right for a pro-Linux site that's News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters?
No, it means all my machines are always automatically up to date and are never hit by "Microsoft holes."
You used the ridiculous 1998-era buzzword "M$" twice which basically invalidates your post as fanatical and full of zealotry.
P.S. Again, the subject of this article was already being discussed in the last iTunes article. Which is funny, because that last iTunes article was already being discussed in the previous one.
Just plain awful.
I looked at the Slashdot front page and wondered why there were so many of the typical "bash Microsoft" articles. One of them was about statements Microsoft made about iTunes, a dupe that even almost had the exact same headline word for word as yesterday's! I usually expect this kind of stuff from Slashdot, but it was being heaved on us a little thick (aren't there any interesting Linux articles we could post today? I want to read about Linux, not Microsoft...)
Then I realized today was the day Microsoft Office 2003 was released to retail. It's sad, but it makes sense. Big day for Microsoft, big bashing agenda on Slashdot. Made all the more obvious when you recognize that Slashdot is a corporate-owned entity (amusing, considering all the anti-corporate spiel around these parts).
What the hell happened to Slashdot in the past year? It's been plain awful.
What sort of testing is required just to plug a security hole? What, your network environment was based around that hole?
This is the same argument the people who got hit by Blaster made. I just had to wonder, was their network so precariously designed that a simple ~500kb patch that plugged a tiny DCOM hole would upset the entire balance? I think a lot of sysadmins use the "testing" thing as an excuse to put off installing patches. "Well, everything works right now so I don't really want to mess with it."
Exactly. My networks have never been hit by anything because we're patched the night the patch comes out.
I didn't even know about Blaster until Slashdot reported it (and reported it and reported it).