Yes, let's conveniently skip a few other points, such as how he denounces Debian for giving you a choice, or how he denounces all non-free software as predatory and dominating you with an iron grip (yeah, Photoshop is ruining my life). Hence, zealotry.
Many DO consider him fanatical. He is the antithesis of common sense and practicality.
He believes in ideals to the point that they become inapplicable to the real world, and so becomes as limiting as the commercial world he so despises. That's the reason some people tend to dislike what he has to say, because of its fundamental contradictory nature. He preaches against limitation and yet imposes it.
It doesn't matter whether the name "sucks" or not.
Of course it does. You want the highest amount of project visibility possible. What is your boss going to think of you bring up something called "Xouvert?" He's going to think exactly what it sounds like--some sort of hacked-together amateur project. What happened to maintaining some semblance of professionalism? We're trying to get Linux recognized and respected, right?
Does it matter to users? No: they don't actually care!
Of course they do. When you have non-stop gibberish names, it turns them off, and it is harder for them to keep track of it all when they are new to all this Linux stuff.
When you have a crappy name, it tells people you just don't care about your presentability. If your boss sees something with an impressive, professional name, it's not goint to seal the deal but it's going to open his mind to it, because it shows that you care about that extra last bit of polish. Your name defines the tone of your project and how users approach it. This is extremely simple, common sense marketing, and Linux needs it, BADLY.
Heck, they shouldn't even have to care.
Then stop with the retarded names!
Does it matter to developers? I don't think they, they care more about the code and the openness of the projects.
Developers care about being "cute" and "funny," and they are the ones who come up with crappy names like this as though it's amusing.
So, where is the problem?
The names are not intuitive and friendly. This doesn't matter to programmers and geeks, but if that's all you're targetting, then there is no problem. My concern is someone fresh to Linux. It's quite daunting. Xine, tcsh, bash, XFree86, GNOME, KDE, Knoppix, pico, joe, Ximian, and so on. In the Windows world, names actually mean things. DVD Decrypter, Wordpad, Office, Lotus Notes, WinDVD, and so on. It's so much easier to digest, and makes more sense. Nobody can fathom why someone would want to call their project "Xouver." There is zero common sense behind it, other than to try to be cute.
Vi and Emacs are not popular outside the Unix commandline community because they're console apps, not because of their names!
I doubt it would matter.
You can rename Emacs to "PowerEdit 2000" but it's marketshare won't change!
Then that's an issue with the app and not the name, as you just pointed out! So what is your point?
The name is certainly not the most important thing. Many people say that Ogg Vorbis will fail just because of it's name. And what do we see?
Ogg Vorbis is pronouncable. Even so, it's mindshare is WAY less than that of MP3s.
More and more MP3 player manufactures are adopting Ogg Vorbis.
I've heard of but one recently. I'd like to see this great, magnificent list of manufacturers you vaguely refer to.
And again: users don't care. If they can use the technology easily, they will, no matter the name.
They care, a LOT. You clearly have little experience with real-world users. I deal with them daily as part of my job. The difference between "Symantec Antivirus 2003" and "Symantec Antivirus Corporate Client" alone confuses people. With all the shit people have to work and do everyday, the last thing they have time for is to try to catalogue various goofy developer names just because you demand that they do so.
Thank you, sir, for the most enlightened post I have laid my eyes upon. My awakening began with the word "microsnot" and was only heightened with "M$ droids" and "Bill the Bandit." Your persuasive techniques and usage of cold, hard facts will maintain a place in my memory and my heart for years to come.
To summarize, I bless you for such a thoughtful and intelligent post that clearly stated the issues with Microsnot and has likely convinced many a developer to stay far away from Droids and the Bandit.
Gates never said "640kb is enough for anybody." This has been endlessly pointed out here. It's a myth, just like P.T. Barnum saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." Also didn't happen.
People have been saying that forever, my friend. In every single article about Linux on the desktop, people wonder why the heck Linux is playing catchup instead of leader. Nobody ever answers, and nothing ever changes. Linux has the opportunity to blow away everything with a complete alternative, but instead we're relying on hacked in shells on top of libraries on top of libraries on top of window managers on top of xlib...you get the idea. It feels hacked together to emulated a desktop. It doesn't feel like a straight-up desktop environment programmed specifically for such.
Lumping all Linux-compatible software together (i.e. Apache, Sendmail, Wu-ftpd (why does anybody still use that?), ProFTPD, Postfix, Qmail, etc.) doesn't count. You need to break those nine flaws down and give details.
Yet people count Office, Outlook, etc. holes as "Windows flaws."
It's complete, 100% common sense that if you were able to magically give Linux the 90+ percent marketshare that Windows has, it will suddenly come under HUGE fire, hackers will be flinging shit at it left and right, and no doubt dozens of holes will be discovered that nobody knows about because the system isn't as "beta-tested" as Windows is.
Second, didn't the last big Windows worm only affect people running MS SQL? What is that, 1% of all Windows installs? So despite the small number of computers which would be affected by this worm, it was still written.
The typical Slashbot strategy. Completely make up a number from thin air that you haven't even looked up--typically illogical (1%???)--and then proceed to base your argument on it as though it is true.
Microsoft had two announced holes last month, while Linux had nine. But there is a massive anti-Microsoft bias here at Slashdot, and everything they do is evil and wrong. Linux flaws only get reported when they're very major ones, like the filesystem-corrupting "turkey" release of the kernel, or the recent FTP hacking incident that people have been making excuses left and right for.
Considering the incredibly huge marketshare and usage that Windows has, it is surprisingly durable and secure, and not as crackworthy as people make it out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if Linux would suddenly buckle under such a load if suddenly given that much. In fact, the only *NIX I would trust would be BSD, just based on reputation, though that's not saying much.
You can't say Linux is as secure, because Linux isn't being run in as many real-world scenarios as Windows is, so you just can't know, aside from yammering heresay and anecdotal evidence.
I don't get it either. Slashdot says "future updates will come from a different domain" as if they always came from windowsupdate.com, which is completely false.
They did. Now it's the fault of users who didn't patch their machines and let the big pretty Automatic Updates icon at least let them know there were critical updates to install.
It sounds like you're whining because you didn't listen to every news media outlet, as well as the government itself, warning you to install this tiny less-than-a-megabyte patch that plugs an RPC hole.
I have never had a problem with Windows Update, neither has any machine I have worked on, nor anybody I know.
XP's System Restore works just fine for me and the network I administer.
The very fact that we deal with these worms once every 2-4 months speaks for itself. If the system worked, and properly explained the danger of leaving the system unpatched we wouldn't have ISPs and government agencies complaining of down time due to a worm.
You're clearly trolling, because XP does exactly that. It refuses to go away until you deal with Automatic Updates. Unless you're one of those "hate anything Microsoft" types who will now bitch about XP "holding your hand." Can't have it both ways.
At the end of your FUD, you say it's unaccepteble for Microsoft to be releasing patches? Yes, let's ignore the fact that last month, Microsoft had two announced vulnerabilities while Linux had nine. Another fact you won't see reported here.
Wow, you still ignored the fact that I shot down all your false claims about Windows Media Player, SP1, and so forth. "This is what I heard about SP1." Who's the sheep?
Upgrade your driver.
Call me a sheep just because I installed a patch that was reported everywhere, including Slashdot, and that the government warned people TWICE to install. A tiny patch to plug a hole in RPC. Bite the bullet and install the patch, or it's your own fault.
That doesn't change my point that this virus took zero skill to write. It was an easy and widely publicized hole to exploit. Some kiddie with a pirated copy of Visual Studio probably wrote it after high school one day.
I look down on virus writers morally as well as technically. Not only are they idiots, but they can't program worth a shit either, so they can only exploit holes that Slashdot had a big article on just to impress their loser friends.
Honestly, that was a silly rant. What does making money have to do with it? Why do you suddenly end with a rant about what Bill wants to do, as if you know?
I guess I'm just curious how this became "+4 Interesting." Yes, we know Microsoft tries to make money.
Why should "M$" (that always-clever dollar sign that never stops being incredibly amusing and funny) take the blame for what you started out saying--people who don't patch their boxes are getting hit?
I agree that everyone should at least check out windowsupdate.com every once in awhile, but I am always hesitant to update my windows box. Windows Media Player 9??? Don't need it, don't want DRM.
So don't install it. It's not in the Critical Updates section.
What about SP1 deactivating xp installs with pirate serial numbers?
Impossible, because SP1 won't even install on machines with pirate serial numbers. Nothing is "deactivated." That's not even a valid criticism anyway, since you're talking about pirated copies of Windows. Next.
I've had DirectX updates that actually crashed previously working games (not lately though, gotta say that's getting better).
Your experience is in the minority. Sounds like a driver issue (seriously).
I like to wait to update my box for about a week or so to see if there is any outcry about some nasty thing Microsoft slips into the update.
There wasn't any outcry over this one. As a matter of fact, the exploit and patch were covered everywhere (including Slashdot), and even the government told people to install the patch, TWICE.
I'll bet I am not alone.
It was a tiny 800kb patch that plugs a hole in RPC. Bite the bullet and install the damn patch.
As far as Blaster is concerned, I rely on independant firewall and antivirus applications to deal with these threats. IMHO it works better than relying on MS to secure their OS.
How silly. You'd rather avoid patching your system with critical updates released by its publisher? Like you don't apply critical Linux patches when necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, let's conveniently skip a few other points, such as how he denounces Debian for giving you a choice, or how he denounces all non-free software as predatory and dominating you with an iron grip (yeah, Photoshop is ruining my life). Hence, zealotry.
Many DO consider him fanatical. He is the antithesis of common sense and practicality.
He believes in ideals to the point that they become inapplicable to the real world, and so becomes as limiting as the commercial world he so despises. That's the reason some people tend to dislike what he has to say, because of its fundamental contradictory nature. He preaches against limitation and yet imposes it.
It doesn't matter whether the name "sucks" or not.
Of course it does. You want the highest amount of project visibility possible. What is your boss going to think of you bring up something called "Xouvert?" He's going to think exactly what it sounds like--some sort of hacked-together amateur project. What happened to maintaining some semblance of professionalism? We're trying to get Linux recognized and respected, right?
Does it matter to users? No: they don't actually care!
Of course they do. When you have non-stop gibberish names, it turns them off, and it is harder for them to keep track of it all when they are new to all this Linux stuff.
When you have a crappy name, it tells people you just don't care about your presentability. If your boss sees something with an impressive, professional name, it's not goint to seal the deal but it's going to open his mind to it, because it shows that you care about that extra last bit of polish. Your name defines the tone of your project and how users approach it. This is extremely simple, common sense marketing, and Linux needs it, BADLY.
Heck, they shouldn't even have to care.
Then stop with the retarded names!
Does it matter to developers? I don't think they, they care more about the code and the openness of the projects.
Developers care about being "cute" and "funny," and they are the ones who come up with crappy names like this as though it's amusing.
So, where is the problem?
The names are not intuitive and friendly. This doesn't matter to programmers and geeks, but if that's all you're targetting, then there is no problem. My concern is someone fresh to Linux. It's quite daunting. Xine, tcsh, bash, XFree86, GNOME, KDE, Knoppix, pico, joe, Ximian, and so on. In the Windows world, names actually mean things. DVD Decrypter, Wordpad, Office, Lotus Notes, WinDVD, and so on. It's so much easier to digest, and makes more sense. Nobody can fathom why someone would want to call their project "Xouver." There is zero common sense behind it, other than to try to be cute.
Vi and Emacs are not popular outside the Unix commandline community because they're console apps, not because of their names!
I doubt it would matter.
You can rename Emacs to "PowerEdit 2000" but it's marketshare won't change!
Then that's an issue with the app and not the name, as you just pointed out! So what is your point?
The name is certainly not the most important thing. Many people say that Ogg Vorbis will fail just because of it's name. And what do we see?
Ogg Vorbis is pronouncable. Even so, it's mindshare is WAY less than that of MP3s.
More and more MP3 player manufactures are adopting Ogg Vorbis.
I've heard of but one recently. I'd like to see this great, magnificent list of manufacturers you vaguely refer to.
And again: users don't care. If they can use the technology easily, they will, no matter the name.
They care, a LOT. You clearly have little experience with real-world users. I deal with them daily as part of my job. The difference between "Symantec Antivirus 2003" and "Symantec Antivirus Corporate Client" alone confuses people. With all the shit people have to work and do everyday, the last thing they have time for is to try to catalogue various goofy developer names just because you demand that they do so.
Next.
What is it that makes it suck, then? Why hasn't it been fixed after YEARS of complaints?
Is it just a problem of motivation?
I'm sure your anonymous boycott will get the job done. Get back to us and let us know how it goes.
You're in a very, very small minority. Don't make the rest of us suffer.
Thank you, sir, for the most enlightened post I have laid my eyes upon. My awakening began with the word "microsnot" and was only heightened with "M$ droids" and "Bill the Bandit." Your persuasive techniques and usage of cold, hard facts will maintain a place in my memory and my heart for years to come.
To summarize, I bless you for such a thoughtful and intelligent post that clearly stated the issues with Microsnot and has likely convinced many a developer to stay far away from Droids and the Bandit.
It's 2003. Blue screens haven't been commonplace since Clinton was in office.
Seriously, get with the times. BSOD jokes in this day and age make you look like a fanatic.
Next.
Gates never said "640kb is enough for anybody." This has been endlessly pointed out here. It's a myth, just like P.T. Barnum saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." Also didn't happen.
People have been saying that forever, my friend. In every single article about Linux on the desktop, people wonder why the heck Linux is playing catchup instead of leader. Nobody ever answers, and nothing ever changes. Linux has the opportunity to blow away everything with a complete alternative, but instead we're relying on hacked in shells on top of libraries on top of libraries on top of window managers on top of xlib...you get the idea. It feels hacked together to emulated a desktop. It doesn't feel like a straight-up desktop environment programmed specifically for such.
It's not GNU/Linux NOW. It's just Linux.
I can strip my Linux system of all GNU software and use free alternatives. I'm still using Linux.
Just pointing that out...
Lumping all Linux-compatible software together (i.e. Apache, Sendmail, Wu-ftpd (why does anybody still use that?), ProFTPD, Postfix, Qmail, etc.) doesn't count. You need to break those nine flaws down and give details.
Yet people count Office, Outlook, etc. holes as "Windows flaws."
What a ridiculous rant.
It's complete, 100% common sense that if you were able to magically give Linux the 90+ percent marketshare that Windows has, it will suddenly come under HUGE fire, hackers will be flinging shit at it left and right, and no doubt dozens of holes will be discovered that nobody knows about because the system isn't as "beta-tested" as Windows is.
Second, didn't the last big Windows worm only affect people running MS SQL? What is that, 1% of all Windows installs? So despite the small number of computers which would be affected by this worm, it was still written.
The typical Slashbot strategy. Completely make up a number from thin air that you haven't even looked up--typically illogical (1%???)--and then proceed to base your argument on it as though it is true.
Microsoft had two announced holes last month, while Linux had nine. But there is a massive anti-Microsoft bias here at Slashdot, and everything they do is evil and wrong. Linux flaws only get reported when they're very major ones, like the filesystem-corrupting "turkey" release of the kernel, or the recent FTP hacking incident that people have been making excuses left and right for.
Considering the incredibly huge marketshare and usage that Windows has, it is surprisingly durable and secure, and not as crackworthy as people make it out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if Linux would suddenly buckle under such a load if suddenly given that much. In fact, the only *NIX I would trust would be BSD, just based on reputation, though that's not saying much.
You can't say Linux is as secure, because Linux isn't being run in as many real-world scenarios as Windows is, so you just can't know, aside from yammering heresay and anecdotal evidence.
Facts you won't see: Microsoft had 2 announced holes last month. Linux has 9.
Yeah, that line never gets old, in every single article discussion.
Um, it's called the W32Blaster worm.
I don't get it either. Slashdot says "future updates will come from a different domain" as if they always came from windowsupdate.com, which is completely false.
fix those gaping holes in their products.
They did. Now it's the fault of users who didn't patch their machines and let the big pretty Automatic Updates icon at least let them know there were critical updates to install.
It sounds like you're whining because you didn't listen to every news media outlet, as well as the government itself, warning you to install this tiny less-than-a-megabyte patch that plugs an RPC hole.
I have never had a problem with Windows Update, neither has any machine I have worked on, nor anybody I know.
XP's System Restore works just fine for me and the network I administer.
The very fact that we deal with these worms once every 2-4 months speaks for itself. If the system worked, and properly explained the danger of leaving the system unpatched we wouldn't have ISPs and government agencies complaining of down time due to a worm.
You're clearly trolling, because XP does exactly that. It refuses to go away until you deal with Automatic Updates. Unless you're one of those "hate anything Microsoft" types who will now bitch about XP "holding your hand." Can't have it both ways.
At the end of your FUD, you say it's unaccepteble for Microsoft to be releasing patches? Yes, let's ignore the fact that last month, Microsoft had two announced vulnerabilities while Linux had nine. Another fact you won't see reported here.
Wow, you still ignored the fact that I shot down all your false claims about Windows Media Player, SP1, and so forth. "This is what I heard about SP1." Who's the sheep?
Upgrade your driver.
Call me a sheep just because I installed a patch that was reported everywhere, including Slashdot, and that the government warned people TWICE to install. A tiny patch to plug a hole in RPC. Bite the bullet and install the patch, or it's your own fault.
That doesn't change my point that this virus took zero skill to write. It was an easy and widely publicized hole to exploit. Some kiddie with a pirated copy of Visual Studio probably wrote it after high school one day.
I look down on virus writers morally as well as technically. Not only are they idiots, but they can't program worth a shit either, so they can only exploit holes that Slashdot had a big article on just to impress their loser friends.
1. Too complicated, or too flaky to make updates simple
You click a link, then click another link.
2. The importance of patching is not impressed on the user at install time
XP refuses to stop bugging you about it until you tell it how you want it to handle Automatic Updates.
3. Patches are too flaky to have automated installations done without even bugging the user
Automatic Updates automatically patches you. I know of several corporate networks that weren't hit by this virus, because they had that on.
The rest of your post was just FUD about the Windows Update system.
Honestly, that was a silly rant. What does making money have to do with it? Why do you suddenly end with a rant about what Bill wants to do, as if you know?
I guess I'm just curious how this became "+4 Interesting." Yes, we know Microsoft tries to make money.
Why should "M$" (that always-clever dollar sign that never stops being incredibly amusing and funny) take the blame for what you started out saying--people who don't patch their boxes are getting hit?
It's getting a little too easy to randomly reference SCO in some way for a +5 Funny.
Just my opinion. I'm tired of this same "joke" showing up in every article.
I agree that everyone should at least check out windowsupdate.com every once in awhile, but I am always hesitant to update my windows box. Windows Media Player 9??? Don't need it, don't want DRM.
So don't install it. It's not in the Critical Updates section.
What about SP1 deactivating xp installs with pirate serial numbers?
Impossible, because SP1 won't even install on machines with pirate serial numbers. Nothing is "deactivated." That's not even a valid criticism anyway, since you're talking about pirated copies of Windows. Next.
I've had DirectX updates that actually crashed previously working games (not lately though, gotta say that's getting better).
Your experience is in the minority. Sounds like a driver issue (seriously).
I like to wait to update my box for about a week or so to see if there is any outcry about some nasty thing Microsoft slips into the update.
There wasn't any outcry over this one. As a matter of fact, the exploit and patch were covered everywhere (including Slashdot), and even the government told people to install the patch, TWICE.
I'll bet I am not alone.
It was a tiny 800kb patch that plugs a hole in RPC. Bite the bullet and install the damn patch.
As far as Blaster is concerned, I rely on independant firewall and antivirus applications to deal with these threats. IMHO it works better than relying on MS to secure their OS.
How silly. You'd rather avoid patching your system with critical updates released by its publisher? Like you don't apply critical Linux patches when necessary.