Sure. Authorization happens now automagically in any semi modern distro. There's a lot of infrastructure that was developed to handle those situations---and many more, of course.
I have a rather vivid image of myself entering root passwords to get administrative things done in my 95ish computer... Maybe the home PCs magically became more powerful when you used another OS?
Whilst OOXML is an ISO standard now, we still own the patents and the right to sue anyone who implements it (even if we issued a covenant not to sue; covenants mean nothing to Microsoft, just to let you know). This is a flat out lie. To become an ISO standard, MS will have to relinguish all property rights to the format to the ISO body themselves, who will licence it to whomever wishes it (The cost of such a licence is usually about $100).
In any case, that's not how standards are supposed to work. They are not descriptions of what might be nice to have so that someone (maybe the body who submitted the standard) maybe implements it all. In most cases, standards solidify tried and accepted stuff.
And here you are, conjuring up nice images of Microsoft maybe, probably, if they are sufficiently motivated, implementing their spec themselves, for the first time, ever.
Well, your post is surely not one of the very well thought out, very well reasoned out, argumentations that one from time to time finds around here. It containesfour sentences: one retorical question, a statement of opinion, an unsubstatiated claim and a nice flamebait line combined with the standard practice of condemning moderators while insulting them. I would say that it deserves any downmoderation it gets quite well by itself...
Your comment has just made me run through the list of my close acquaintances checking that none of them might ever refer to themselves are `cubers'... I would have hated having to kill any of them!
Why would there be more consistency across linux distros than say, from a Windows install to a Mac install? In the many years I have been using linux (on two distros) I have exactly once had to hunt for a config file that had moved from where it was in the same distro in an earlier version; I'd hope that IIS has not moved its config files much across different versions, but I'd be very surprised if it had consistently put them in the same place as apache does...
It was not too subtle, it was simply a silly point, amounting to the statement ``I do not know the tool and I am surprised that it does not work well when I use it''.
If it's a new distro, that 10 minutes will typically be spent just trying to find the httpd.conf because it could be anywhere (yes, I know "slocate httpd.conf", I was making a point).
If the distro is so new to you that you do not know where the httpd.conf file is located, then you should probably not be setting up a internet-facing web server on it...
I do not anyone, apart from geeks, who's heard of any other distro. Most people I know that use Linux are not aware there are different distros, even...
Unless I'm mistaken, I thought part of the appeal here was the idea of a mass-market, easy-to-use Linux computer. Average Joe can go out and buy a cheap desktop, sure, but given how messy some of the Linux distros are to install and use I don't seem him going out of his way to put Linux on the computer...especially since he'd have to figure out which of the multiple distros he wants to use in the first place.
What are the actual chances, you'd say, someone who does not now much more about linux apart from its existance will install a distro different from Ubuntu, Fedora or Debian?
provider of voice services for everyday life, including nationwide
directory assistance, enterprise customer service and voice-enabled mobile
search. because
[...] [they] and Microsoft share a common vision around the limitless
potential of voice as a way to find information, connect with people and enhance
business processes, any time and from any device.
`the limitless potential of voice as a way to find information'... whoever wrote that should be chaired.
You have not seen FOSS software with good interfaces. I have.
Were they also original? Remember, I'm saying that FOSS can't produce software which is both original and nice to use.
I do not care for `original'. I only use FOSS and all the apps I use solve the problems I need to solve. I honestly do not care if they are original or not. And they are nice enough that I do not feel even interested in looking for alternatives. The only non-FOSS app I wished I had available is Mathematica, and not exactly for its UI, which I find quite lacking, not its originality, which is debatable, and I would never call it nice.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. My statement is not difficult to comprehend, despite what you say. You appear to be hell-bent on arguing that what I'm saying is nonsensical, rather than actually arguing with me on the facts. If you want to say I'm wrong, fine. But acting like it doesn't make sense until it's proven is annoying and illogical. This is tiresome and unproductive, so you can have the last word. I quit.
You are not arguing: you are saying things, which is something quite different.
I asked for the underlying facts to your claims: do you have numbers on how much FOSS is out there, what part of it is endowed with good UIs, and likewise, how much non-FOSS is out there and what part of it is endowed with good UIs? Why I asked for this? Because your `reasoning' came down to the following:
The correct conclusion is that some proprietary software sucks, of course. But the reason you say that is because some proprietary software doesn't suck. However, all FOSS software sucks in the areas I described. There is no such software which does not suck in those areas. Therefore the correct conclusion is not that some FOSS software sucks, it's that all FOSS software sucks. Given the volume produced, it's quite reasonable to conclude that FOSS is incapable of producing good software in the areas described.
You reduced your claim to a matter of proportion grounded on unexplained `all's. To even make sense of it, then, you need to provide actual data on the `volumes produces' as FOSS and as non-FOSS so that your comparison is based on something else part from the `because I said so' that it is currently based on.
Had you tried to argue that there is something in the organizational or economic aspects of FOSS which inherently make it incapable of producing good UIs, I would not have asked for actual data. But you didn't---basically because you would not be able to make a coherent case for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Authorization happens now automagically in any semi modern distro. There's a lot of infrastructure that was developed to handle those situations---and many more, of course.
I have a rather vivid image of myself entering root passwords to get administrative things done in my 95ish computer... Maybe the home PCs magically became more powerful when you used another OS?
I wonder what does a true scotsman do?...
Where did you possibly did you get that from?!
The scale of the issue and the consequences of the actions should always be taken into account when trying to make moral and ethical assessments...
In any case, that's not how standards are supposed to work. They are not descriptions of what might be nice to have so that someone (maybe the body who submitted the standard) maybe implements it all. In most cases, standards solidify tried and accepted stuff.
And here you are, conjuring up nice images of Microsoft maybe, probably, if they are sufficiently motivated, implementing their spec themselves, for the first time, ever.
Well, your post is surely not one of the very well thought out, very well reasoned out, argumentations that one from time to time finds around here. It containesfour sentences: one retorical question, a statement of opinion, an unsubstatiated claim and a nice flamebait line combined with the standard practice of condemning moderators while insulting them. I would say that it deserves any downmoderation it gets quite well by itself...
Your comment has just made me run through the list of my close acquaintances checking that none of them might ever refer to themselves are `cubers'... I would have hated having to kill any of them!
...it is quite a task to find it as it is!
Do windows apps still work after you remove pieces of them? Now that's impressive!
What apps have stopped working on the Linux side?
Why are you looking into other /.er's cars?
So, what are you saying? That it is then good practice?
Nice explanation.
Have you filed the appropriate bugs detailing how to reproduce this?
I have used netscape/mozilla/firebird/firefox for an age now, and I have never had that happen...
Why would there be more consistency across linux distros than say, from a Windows install to a Mac install? In the many years I have been using linux (on two distros) I have exactly once had to hunt for a config file that had moved from where it was in the same distro in an earlier version; I'd hope that IIS has not moved its config files much across different versions, but I'd be very surprised if it had consistently put them in the same place as apache does...
It was not too subtle, it was simply a silly point, amounting to the statement ``I do not know the tool and I am surprised that it does not work well when I use it''.
What's strange, really, is that you find it strange...
If the distro is so new to you that you do not know where the httpd.conf file is located, then you should probably not be setting up a internet-facing web server on it...
Actually, with any positive number of hits per day it is possible to hit the 3TB cap at some point...
Why couldn't s/he be a man? Is the concept really that unthinkable for you?
I do not anyone, apart from geeks, who's heard of any other distro. Most people I know that use Linux are not aware there are different distros, even...
What are the actual chances, you'd say, someone who does not now much more about linux apart from its existance will install a distro different from Ubuntu, Fedora or Debian?
Apparently, they are a
provider of voice services for everyday life, including nationwide directory assistance, enterprise customer service and voice-enabled mobile search. because [...] [they] and Microsoft share a common vision around the limitless potential of voice as a way to find information, connect with people and enhance business processes, any time and from any device.`the limitless potential of voice as a way to find information'... whoever wrote that should be chaired.
I do not care for `original'. I only use FOSS and all the apps I use solve the problems I need to solve. I honestly do not care if they are original or not. And they are nice enough that I do not feel even interested in looking for alternatives. The only non-FOSS app I wished I had available is Mathematica, and not exactly for its UI, which I find quite lacking, not its originality, which is debatable, and I would never call it nice.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. My statement is not difficult to comprehend, despite what you say. You appear to be hell-bent on arguing that what I'm saying is nonsensical, rather than actually arguing with me on the facts. If you want to say I'm wrong, fine. But acting like it doesn't make sense until it's proven is annoying and illogical. This is tiresome and unproductive, so you can have the last word. I quit.You are not arguing: you are saying things, which is something quite different.
I asked for the underlying facts to your claims: do you have numbers on how much FOSS is out there, what part of it is endowed with good UIs, and likewise, how much non-FOSS is out there and what part of it is endowed with good UIs? Why I asked for this? Because your `reasoning' came down to the following:
The correct conclusion is that some proprietary software sucks, of course. But the reason you say that is because some proprietary software doesn't suck. However, all FOSS software sucks in the areas I described. There is no such software which does not suck in those areas. Therefore the correct conclusion is not that some FOSS software sucks, it's that all FOSS software sucks. Given the volume produced, it's quite reasonable to conclude that FOSS is incapable of producing good software in the areas described.You reduced your claim to a matter of proportion grounded on unexplained `all's. To even make sense of it, then, you need to provide actual data on the `volumes produces' as FOSS and as non-FOSS so that your comparison is based on something else part from the `because I said so' that it is currently based on.
Had you tried to argue that there is something in the organizational or economic aspects of FOSS which inherently make it incapable of producing good UIs, I would not have asked for actual data. But you didn't---basically because you would not be able to make a coherent case for it.