I'm subscribed to a service that lets me take on-line surveys for small amounts of cash. One of the things that they do to weed out bots, or people who aren't being honest might work here. On the first page, have you enter your age in years. Then, there's a "read and agree" page. After you've gone through that, you have to enter your date of birth. If that doesn't match your age, you're denied access. Most kids aren't going to remember what age they gave simply because they don't know that it's going to matter, especially if they just get what looks like a 404 response instead of being told they're not old enough.
Did you require the configuration to be in-the-box with no manual tweaking? or something else?
That's a good question, and it deserves an answer. I'd think that an option in whatever control panel is used to control the desktop's appearance to use the traditional UI, along with instructions in Windows Help should be enough. And, if there's a walk-through or tutorial included, having it mentioned in there would be nice. The important thing to me isn't how it looks out-of-the-box, it's how easy it is to get things looking the way you like. (You shouldn't need, as an example, to install third-party software to allow you to tweak such things, as you do with Gnome 3.)
I wrote that comment because I have nothing against people who use Windows, even though I don't use it myself. And, I understand that one of the main reasons that people resist upgrading is the learning curve. Making that curve as flat as is reasonably possible cuts that resistance, especially in offices where most people only want to keep on doing their work the same way that they always have. Forcing them to use a completely different UI is only going to slow down the process. My POV is that the Windows XP look and feel works, and as long as it does, there's no good reason to force people to change just for the sake of change. (If the new UI really is that much better, most people will gradually migrate to it on their own, but they shouldn't be forced to change until/unless they're ready to.)
If you haven't been following this stuff, now is good time to try the free preview...
You're assuming that I actually give a rat's ass about how Gatesware works. I'm very, very happy, TYVM using nothing but FOSS and I see no reason to pay for what I can get for free. If Winblows 10 has the traditional look and feel, that's nice for those who want to use them, but you can count me among those who won't be trying it.
I've been running a Linux-only house for about seven years. Before that, I used various versions of Windows either at home or at work. The last version I really used was XP. It doesn't matter why I stopped using Windows, but there was one thing about it back then that I liked: the basic desktop layout with the taskbar and icons. One of the things that would have driven me away from Windows 8 was the way it came with a default GUI that looked like it was designed for a tablet. It always sounded unreasonable to me to use that type of GUI on a computer that didn't have a touch screen and I never wanted to get involved with it. (Gnome 3 and Unity went the same way, and I won't use either.) Currently, I use one of the many Linux Desktop Environments that lets me configure the look and feel of the desktop the way I want, not the way somebody else wants.
If I were using Windows and considering using Windows 10 it would be a big point in its favor if it either had a more traditional UI by default, or an easy way to switch to that look. I gather that Windows 7 had that, and I don't think that I'm the only one who would want it in Windows 10. After all, there are a lot of people out there who are being forced off of XP, and making the UI work the way their accustomed to would probably help overcome any reluctance they might have to switching.
If you set sudo up correctly (i.e., nobody has unrestricted use of sudo and the admins are expected to use su instead.) you have God(s), the nobility and the peasants. The nobility, of course, consists of those users who are allowed limited access to sudo to manage their own boxes, but their privileges don't include doing the really dangerous stuff and the peasants neither have nor need even that limited access to elevated privileges.
Yes, or at least it does the best it can. However, you can't then take the data that you used to create the theory and claim that it proves the theory.
If your theory is so wonderfully complete, why can't you create a computer model that can start with conditions twenty years ago and work out a correct description of the present? Please note, I'm not denying that it's getting warmer. I simply don't subscribe to the current hubris that makes humanity responsible for all of it.
Reading for comprehension; what a concept. It's a shame you don't understand it. The earth's climate is getting warmer. AGW claims that it can explain this fact by blaming it all on human activities. You can't, however, use the change as proof of AGW, because that would be circular reasoning.
I'm sorry that you have so much trouble understanding simple English. I don't care how you twist it, the fact that the climate is getting warmer (Something that only a completely closed-mind denier would argue about.) isn't proof by itself that AGW is correct.
Are you trying for the Logical Fallacy of the Year Award here?
The fact that it's getting warmer isn't proof that AGW is correct; at best, it's proof that it might not be completely wrong. I'm not saying that you're guilty of that fallacy, but I've seen many posts here by AGW fanatics that essentially say exactly that.
Just out of curiosity, is that the time between turning the power on and the OS starting to load or does that include the time it takes to load the OS? I know that you started out talking about firmware initialization, but boot time generally includes how long the OS takes to come up. In the latter case, there are ways to optimize that, by turning off services that you don't need started at boot. (As an example: if you only use MS Office once or twice a week, do you really need it loading in the background?) How you do that and how much control you have is, of course, very OS specific, but I don't know of any current desktop OS that doesn't let you do it at all.
Now too much shit has a "soft" power shit, initially so it can sense a remote...
If you really want that stuff to turn off and stay off, don't plug it directly into the wall. Plug it into a power strip with a real on/off switch and turn it off there.
Using https to transmit sensitive information is the same as remembering to lock your car. It's not perfect and it won't stop a determined attack, but it's enough to prevent casual intrusions. And, of course, if somebody does break the encryption there's no way they can claim that they didn't know that the transmission was private.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm subscribed to a service that lets me take on-line surveys for small amounts of cash. One of the things that they do to weed out bots, or people who aren't being honest might work here. On the first page, have you enter your age in years. Then, there's a "read and agree" page. After you've gone through that, you have to enter your date of birth. If that doesn't match your age, you're denied access. Most kids aren't going to remember what age they gave simply because they don't know that it's going to matter, especially if they just get what looks like a 404 response instead of being told they're not old enough.
Did you require the configuration to be in-the-box with no manual tweaking? or something else?
That's a good question, and it deserves an answer. I'd think that an option in whatever control panel is used to control the desktop's appearance to use the traditional UI, along with instructions in Windows Help should be enough. And, if there's a walk-through or tutorial included, having it mentioned in there would be nice. The important thing to me isn't how it looks out-of-the-box, it's how easy it is to get things looking the way you like. (You shouldn't need, as an example, to install third-party software to allow you to tweak such things, as you do with Gnome 3.)
I wrote that comment because I have nothing against people who use Windows, even though I don't use it myself. And, I understand that one of the main reasons that people resist upgrading is the learning curve. Making that curve as flat as is reasonably possible cuts that resistance, especially in offices where most people only want to keep on doing their work the same way that they always have. Forcing them to use a completely different UI is only going to slow down the process. My POV is that the Windows XP look and feel works, and as long as it does, there's no good reason to force people to change just for the sake of change. (If the new UI really is that much better, most people will gradually migrate to it on their own, but they shouldn't be forced to change until/unless they're ready to.)
If you haven't been following this stuff, now is good time to try the free preview...
You're assuming that I actually give a rat's ass about how Gatesware works. I'm very, very happy, TYVM using nothing but FOSS and I see no reason to pay for what I can get for free. If Winblows 10 has the traditional look and feel, that's nice for those who want to use them, but you can count me among those who won't be trying it.
That's not the way things work today. All genders are entitled to equal protection under the law, but some genders are more equal than others.
I've been running a Linux-only house for about seven years. Before that, I used various versions of Windows either at home or at work. The last version I really used was XP. It doesn't matter why I stopped using Windows, but there was one thing about it back then that I liked: the basic desktop layout with the taskbar and icons. One of the things that would have driven me away from Windows 8 was the way it came with a default GUI that looked like it was designed for a tablet. It always sounded unreasonable to me to use that type of GUI on a computer that didn't have a touch screen and I never wanted to get involved with it. (Gnome 3 and Unity went the same way, and I won't use either.) Currently, I use one of the many Linux Desktop Environments that lets me configure the look and feel of the desktop the way I want, not the way somebody else wants.
If I were using Windows and considering using Windows 10 it would be a big point in its favor if it either had a more traditional UI by default, or an easy way to switch to that look. I gather that Windows 7 had that, and I don't think that I'm the only one who would want it in Windows 10. After all, there are a lot of people out there who are being forced off of XP, and making the UI work the way their accustomed to would probably help overcome any reluctance they might have to switching.
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
You have it backwards: It is now official: Netcraft is dying; BSD confirms it.
...Where Seldon is heard,
A discouraging word.
Thank you; asked and answered.
I had the same idea, with one thing added: if any OS wins, it won't come from Microsoft.
Physics hasn't got a lot of room for opions I'm afraid, the universe is somewhat oblivious to the whims of political opinion.
Just remember: that statement cuts both ways.
With UNIX, there is god and the peasant.
If you set sudo up correctly (i.e., nobody has unrestricted use of sudo and the admins are expected to use su instead.) you have God(s), the nobility and the peasants. The nobility, of course, consists of those users who are allowed limited access to sudo to manage their own boxes, but their privileges don't include doing the really dangerous stuff and the peasants neither have nor need even that limited access to elevated privileges.
How much of a discount will they have to offer to make it a better deal than free?
Yes, or at least it does the best it can. However, you can't then take the data that you used to create the theory and claim that it proves the theory.
If your theory is so wonderfully complete, why can't you create a computer model that can start with conditions twenty years ago and work out a correct description of the present? Please note, I'm not denying that it's getting warmer. I simply don't subscribe to the current hubris that makes humanity responsible for all of it.
Yes, but the fact that the data matches the theory...
That's not at all surprising, because the theory was developed to explain the data.
Reading for comprehension; what a concept. It's a shame you don't understand it. The earth's climate is getting warmer. AGW claims that it can explain this fact by blaming it all on human activities. You can't, however, use the change as proof of AGW, because that would be circular reasoning.
I'm sorry that you have so much trouble understanding simple English. I don't care how you twist it, the fact that the climate is getting warmer (Something that only a completely closed-mind denier would argue about.) isn't proof by itself that AGW is correct.
Are you trying for the Logical Fallacy of the Year Award here?
The fact that it's getting warmer isn't proof that AGW is correct; at best, it's proof that it might not be completely wrong. I'm not saying that you're guilty of that fallacy, but I've seen many posts here by AGW fanatics that essentially say exactly that.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Just out of curiosity, is that the time between turning the power on and the OS starting to load or does that include the time it takes to load the OS? I know that you started out talking about firmware initialization, but boot time generally includes how long the OS takes to come up. In the latter case, there are ways to optimize that, by turning off services that you don't need started at boot. (As an example: if you only use MS Office once or twice a week, do you really need it loading in the background?) How you do that and how much control you have is, of course, very OS specific, but I don't know of any current desktop OS that doesn't let you do it at all.
Now too much shit has a "soft" power shit, initially so it can sense a remote...
If you really want that stuff to turn off and stay off, don't plug it directly into the wall. Plug it into a power strip with a real on/off switch and turn it off there.
Using https to transmit sensitive information is the same as remembering to lock your car. It's not perfect and it won't stop a determined attack, but it's enough to prevent casual intrusions. And, of course, if somebody does break the encryption there's no way they can claim that they didn't know that the transmission was private.
Sheesh, it's just semantics.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Of course they can't write civil code; they're programmers, not lawyers.