4. How much the software costs to maintain over its lifetime. Administration, for example. 5. The downtime, if any, for upgrades. How much and what is the cost? 6. How new is the software? Could the software in it's current state run for as long as needed with the exception of significant performance improvements or security updates? If not, #5 comes into play.
When a *nix box gets rooted, generally standard practice says that you rebuild the box. I'm unsure if this is the case with Windows rootings. That is just the way it is.
Malware wants to be "sticky". I'm surprised it has taken this long to become truly difficult if not downright impossible to remove.
What I wonder is if people will just tolerate the unremovable malware instead of the frustration and/or time of reinstalling the OS and applications and getting everything just right all over again. It's one thing for system administrators and geeks to reinstall. It another thing entirely for the average user to have full/incremental backups or cloned drives or some set of procedures for reinstallation.
What does matter is that this browser will be relased for XP and XP doesn't have the nice little protective sandboxes to run IE7 in that Vista will. This is a big deal. Presumably IE users will upgrade to IE7 when it is a final release and it's looking to be no better security wise than previous versions of IE. It seems MS is still continuing to fight the security battle from the band-aid end instead of from a root cause stance.
Sorry, your web browser is not yet supported.
Our programming wizards tried their darndest to get Google Page Creator to work with as many browsers as possible. But alas, even the most expert practitioners of web sorcery must sleep now and again, lest their JavaScript magic run dry.
So, for now, you'll need either to download a new version of Firefox or download a new version of Internet Explorer (Windows only), and then come right back.
If it doesn't matter you you, why are you glad they are going this direction?
Their choice of distro doesn't matter to me, I thought I made that clear by my failure to understand why a distro is so important. Let me try it this way: I'm glad IBM Germany is choosing open source over closed solutions. Can I not be agnostic to a distro but instead embrace open source as a whole?
I have. These discussions seem to frequently digress into discussions of which distro is better than the other. Will I not be able to view a web page at IBM Germany because it's running on Redhat instead of SuSE or Slackware? Will documents created with Open Office read or format differently because it was written on a different distro than I prefer? The answer is no.
They are, for most intents and purposes, different OS's.
Save for the system administrators, what difference does it make anyone outside IBM Germany that the distros may be diverging and/or be different OS's? I cannot tell a difference between a document created on a RedHat system vs. a SuSE system.
I'm glad IBM Germany is going in this direction regardless of what distro they choose. It doesn't make any difference to me, especially since I'm not an end user of their services and I suspect if the end users of their services get the same quality of service they have up to this point, they won't care either.
So, why does it matter that it's Redhat instead of SuSE or any of the other 100+ distros? Looking at the bigger picture, it would seem GNU/Linux is advancing. Isn't that more important than the particular distro?
Sometimes greatness in one person (this programmer) because of the people around him. Just because he nailed something right the first time, doesn't mean it can happen again. Further, the iPod was a group effort.
For example, look at any individual in Led Zeppelin. While they all contributed to a group effort (much like the iPod) none of the individuals went on to have the fame they achieved as part of Led Zeppelin.
I think Apple understands the noted direction change. iWeb is very simple to use. While it may not be chock full of features, it does allow you to start writing your blog entry almost immediately. I chose a template, and now, much like writing a new email, the blog process is simple: I just alter the title, drop in a picture (if I want one) and write my entry. Publish. Done. With an email, I just choose a recipient, type in a subject, and finally the body of the email. Click send. Done. iWeb matches that sort of simplicity. I think for a good number of users, that direction is a good choice.
The selected government and university will be required to install open-source software as a main operating infrastructure
Since when is forcing adoption the right thing to do? Is this forced switch really in the best interest of the students? What applications might they have to give up that don't have the equivelent in the open source world.
That is no better than MS forcing their software upon anyone they can. Not because it's necessarily better but because they can.
I'm reaching here but the idea sounds at least a bit interesting..NET supports multiple languages. The languages are converted to IL and the resulting code between the languages look almost identical. Could you have that situation where multiple languages are used and IL is debugged?
What percentage of that 10-20% are the geeks with a religious hangup on the software they use? Further, there is a difference between doesn't want to and will not. I doubt that the majority of your stated 10-20% number of people would draw the line at not using IE when the viewing would have benefit or is of real interest to them.
Hate to say it Taco but...
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 1
"...but his points are clear and accurate, and deserve consideration."
Vulnerabilties on the *nix platform aren't going down. Regardless of how easy it is to retrieve and install patches/updates, one is seemingly bombarded with the need to update. One hears the Linux zealots, for example, brag how fast the response to bug/exploit reports are and how quickly (this varies from vendor to vendor) the bugs/exploits are fixed. Great. While the response and ability to band-aid is admirable (very much so!), where is the quick response to improving software processes to help prevent all these potential exploits? Where is the quick response to fix the root causes?
Every time these articles get posted there always seems to be a great deal of deflection of discussion from the root cause. I wish articles like these fostered dicussion of possible paths to solution and/or how people can help protect themselves in light of all these vulnerable, bundled, applications.
We all know how responsive the *nix community is, in particular the GNU/Linux platform, what a lot of us don't know is how we can stop this problem or at least more significantly mitigate the effects.
Maybe MS feels they can get away with a subpar release as their customer base is getting accustomed to lower and lower quality. XBox360 issues. Developers begging MS *not* to release Visual Studio and instead fix the bus but MS released VS anyway. MS is just tweaking an OS that was gutted feature wise. Why sit on it and pretend it's something it's not? Fix what little is left to fix and go with it.
Actually I'd say Apple should come under fire for locking users into MacOS. I bought a computer not an OS. I want to run whatever I want on my Mac.
What can you not run? Where did you get the expectation that going outside the Apple Distortion Field would be a nice experience? As far as alternative operating systems go that can run on Mac Hardware, it's pretty easy to find out what will and will not run. YelloDog Linux is pretty clear.
Point is, Apple is just as guilty as say Dell for forcing users to use one particular OS.
What? Which particular OS are you forced to use? We've bought Dell's with Linux at the company I work for. As far as home use goes, I think I heard there is a FreeDOS version so you can put on whatever you wish. Regardless, Dell doesn't force you to do anything if you don't choose to purchase from them. If their selection doesn't suit you, go elsewhere.
No, you bought a MacOS box from a niche company that provides a particular experience with their software/hardware.
Even if Microsoft includes support for an OpenDocument format, the only thing it will do is enable MS Word users to read documents from other word processors such as OpenOffice or StarOffice.
There are a lot of Office users and I doubt that trend will change any time soon. Supporting OpenDocument is a good thing for those users. It's also good for MS being part of the procurement process for any company, state, or government choosing that format.
However, I'm sure MS will still have the default save setting be their proprietary.doc format, which Joe User will automatically choose..
So? The OpenOffice Write (2.0 beta) defaults to.odt even though it supports the reading and writing of.doc documents.
it was not designed to support transactions, it was not designed to support foreign keys
Forgive my ignorance, but if a plug-in design allows for table handlers to be added that support missing feature(s), what is inferior/wrong with that? It would seem MySQL was designed with modularity in mind. InnoDB supports the features you mentioned, and that I quoted, so why is that less desireable than having the table handler builtin?
What's the advantage to MySQL?
For me, the massive community is a big plus. A rich set of tools is another advantage.
How quickly and effectively were the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerabilities patched in comparison to IE?
Isn't that secondary to the fact that more vulnerabilities were discovered? Yes, Mozilla Foundation patches more quickly than MS but that doesn't discount the original point: more vulnerabilities were found in a given time frame.
Why didn't you buy a Linux box in the first place? How did OS X help you feel more comfortable with "Linux/Shell" environments than you think you'd have gotten with some distro of Linux?
This sort of thing boils my blood. There is a certain level of trust I have with a vendor who provides detection and removal of spyware, etc. I've not payed as much attention as maybe I should have, but what other vendors are strong in detecting spyware that don't give in or at least haven't thus far? The product they purchased from Giant was really good to boot. Doesn't take look for the MS taint to occur, does it?
Unrelated, I get the impression, MS doesn't need more competent competition to fail. Instead, they need to continue doing just what they are doing. Between moves like this, the failure to manage projects, etc. they are hurting themselves just fine and making everything that isn't MS look better.
Every so often the MS marketing machine almost gets me to believe they might be changing. The developer blogs have helped a lot in that respect. Then MS does something like this. On the one hand they say they are concerned about this threat and then, not too long into the future, they pull a move like this which says the exact opposite.
Are we still having serious problems with people not being able to use their computers 100% with Linux or are they talking about "out-of-the-box" with no configuration necessary?
I've had some experience with two different Toshiba laptops (which I think are great) and problems have been:
Hibernation/Sleep
Sound
Wireless
Grapics required a lot of configuring
I've seen enough messages from developers addressing some or all of the issues. The point being they are real problems to varying degrees for some people. I think Ubuntu is working really hard to address hiberation issues and I applaud them for that.
In my case it is a mix of being able to use purchased hardware 100% and having no out-of-the-box configuration. For some reason expecting/wanting either gets you flamed on/.. I don't understand why. The laptop came with a DVD that puts the OS and other apps (generally crap) onto the hardware with no configuration other than the required network settings, account settings, etc. If I move to another OS, why is having the same expectation silly?
What makes you think the two codebases look similar enough, after all this time, to make pushing out patches easy? Safari has gone, and undoubtedly will continue, to go in a different direction. The codebase between the two will continue to grow apart not closer together.
Slashdot Mirror
4. How much the software costs to maintain over its lifetime. Administration, for example.
5. The downtime, if any, for upgrades. How much and what is the cost?
6. How new is the software? Could the software in it's current state run for as long as needed with the exception of significant performance improvements or security updates? If not, #5 comes into play.
When a *nix box gets rooted, generally standard practice says that you rebuild the box. I'm unsure if this is the case with Windows rootings. That is just the way it is.
Malware wants to be "sticky". I'm surprised it has taken this long to become truly difficult if not downright impossible to remove.
What I wonder is if people will just tolerate the unremovable malware instead of the frustration and/or time of reinstalling the OS and applications and getting everything just right all over again. It's one thing for system administrators and geeks to reinstall. It another thing entirely for the average user to have full/incremental backups or cloned drives or some set of procedures for reinstallation.
This is definitely an interesting situation.
What does matter is that this browser will be relased for XP and XP doesn't have the nice little protective sandboxes to run IE7 in that Vista will. This is a big deal. Presumably IE users will upgrade to IE7 when it is a final release and it's looking to be no better security wise than previous versions of IE. It seems MS is still continuing to fight the security battle from the band-aid end instead of from a root cause stance.
Sorry, your web browser is not yet supported. Our programming wizards tried their darndest to get Google Page Creator to work with as many browsers as possible. But alas, even the most expert practitioners of web sorcery must sleep now and again, lest their JavaScript magic run dry. So, for now, you'll need either to download a new version of Firefox or download a new version of Internet Explorer (Windows only), and then come right back.
Their choice of distro doesn't matter to me, I thought I made that clear by my failure to understand why a distro is so important. Let me try it this way: I'm glad IBM Germany is choosing open source over closed solutions. Can I not be agnostic to a distro but instead embrace open source as a whole?
I have. These discussions seem to frequently digress into discussions of which distro is better than the other. Will I not be able to view a web page at IBM Germany because it's running on Redhat instead of SuSE or Slackware? Will documents created with Open Office read or format differently because it was written on a different distro than I prefer? The answer is no.
Save for the system administrators, what difference does it make anyone outside IBM Germany that the distros may be diverging and/or be different OS's? I cannot tell a difference between a document created on a RedHat system vs. a SuSE system.
I'm glad IBM Germany is going in this direction regardless of what distro they choose. It doesn't make any difference to me, especially since I'm not an end user of their services and I suspect if the end users of their services get the same quality of service they have up to this point, they won't care either.
So, why does it matter that it's Redhat instead of SuSE or any of the other 100+ distros? Looking at the bigger picture, it would seem GNU/Linux is advancing. Isn't that more important than the particular distro?
Sometimes greatness in one person (this programmer) because of the people around him. Just because he nailed something right the first time, doesn't mean it can happen again. Further, the iPod was a group effort.
For example, look at any individual in Led Zeppelin. While they all contributed to a group effort (much like the iPod) none of the individuals went on to have the fame they achieved as part of Led Zeppelin.
I think Apple understands the noted direction change. iWeb is very simple to use. While it may not be chock full of features, it does allow you to start writing your blog entry almost immediately. I chose a template, and now, much like writing a new email, the blog process is simple: I just alter the title, drop in a picture (if I want one) and write my entry. Publish. Done. With an email, I just choose a recipient, type in a subject, and finally the body of the email. Click send. Done. iWeb matches that sort of simplicity. I think for a good number of users, that direction is a good choice.
Since when is forcing adoption the right thing to do? Is this forced switch really in the best interest of the students? What applications might they have to give up that don't have the equivelent in the open source world.
That is no better than MS forcing their software upon anyone they can. Not because it's necessarily better but because they can.
I'm reaching here but the idea sounds at least a bit interesting. .NET supports multiple languages. The languages are converted to IL and the resulting code between the languages look almost identical. Could you have that situation where multiple languages are used and IL is debugged?
What percentage of that 10-20% are the geeks with a religious hangup on the software they use? Further, there is a difference between doesn't want to and will not. I doubt that the majority of your stated 10-20% number of people would draw the line at not using IE when the viewing would have benefit or is of real interest to them.
...you're new here, aren't you? :-)
Vulnerabilties on the *nix platform aren't going down. Regardless of how easy it is to retrieve and install patches/updates, one is seemingly bombarded with the need to update. One hears the Linux zealots, for example, brag how fast the response to bug/exploit reports are and how quickly (this varies from vendor to vendor) the bugs/exploits are fixed. Great. While the response and ability to band-aid is admirable (very much so!), where is the quick response to improving software processes to help prevent all these potential exploits? Where is the quick response to fix the root causes?
Every time these articles get posted there always seems to be a great deal of deflection of discussion from the root cause. I wish articles like these fostered dicussion of possible paths to solution and/or how people can help protect themselves in light of all these vulnerable, bundled, applications.
We all know how responsive the *nix community is, in particular the GNU/Linux platform, what a lot of us don't know is how we can stop this problem or at least more significantly mitigate the effects.
The intent of code is important and code cannot always make that clear.
Maybe MS feels they can get away with a subpar release as their customer base is getting accustomed to lower and lower quality. XBox360 issues. Developers begging MS *not* to release Visual Studio and instead fix the bus but MS released VS anyway. MS is just tweaking an OS that was gutted feature wise. Why sit on it and pretend it's something it's not? Fix what little is left to fix and go with it.
What can you not run? Where did you get the expectation that going outside the Apple Distortion Field would be a nice experience? As far as alternative operating systems go that can run on Mac Hardware, it's pretty easy to find out what will and will not run. YelloDog Linux is pretty clear.
What? Which particular OS are you forced to use? We've bought Dell's with Linux at the company I work for. As far as home use goes, I think I heard there is a FreeDOS version so you can put on whatever you wish. Regardless, Dell doesn't force you to do anything if you don't choose to purchase from them. If their selection doesn't suit you, go elsewhere.
No, you bought a MacOS box from a niche company that provides a particular experience with their software/hardware.
There are a lot of Office users and I doubt that trend will change any time soon. Supporting OpenDocument is a good thing for those users. It's also good for MS being part of the procurement process for any company, state, or government choosing that format.
So? The OpenOffice Write (2.0 beta) defaults toForgive my ignorance, but if a plug-in design allows for table handlers to be added that support missing feature(s), what is inferior/wrong with that? It would seem MySQL was designed with modularity in mind. InnoDB supports the features you mentioned, and that I quoted, so why is that less desireable than having the table handler builtin?
For me, the massive community is a big plus. A rich set of tools is another advantage.
How quickly and effectively were the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerabilities patched in comparison to IE?
Isn't that secondary to the fact that more vulnerabilities were discovered? Yes, Mozilla Foundation patches more quickly than MS but that doesn't discount the original point: more vulnerabilities were found in a given time frame.
"I'd be more likely to run Linux now than ever."
Why didn't you buy a Linux box in the first place? How did OS X help you feel more comfortable with "Linux/Shell" environments than you think you'd have gotten with some distro of Linux?
Also, didn't they copy user-switching? But it's alright because they gave it a 3D animation, so it was innovative ;-)
Yeah, fast user switching was copied and conceeded at the keynote when that feature was shown. Innovative was not the word used.
This sort of thing boils my blood. There is a certain level of trust I have with a vendor who provides detection and removal of spyware, etc. I've not payed as much attention as maybe I should have, but what other vendors are strong in detecting spyware that don't give in or at least haven't thus far? The product they purchased from Giant was really good to boot. Doesn't take look for the MS taint to occur, does it?
Unrelated, I get the impression, MS doesn't need more competent competition to fail. Instead, they need to continue doing just what they are doing. Between moves like this, the failure to manage projects, etc. they are hurting themselves just fine and making everything that isn't MS look better.
Every so often the MS marketing machine almost gets me to believe they might be changing. The developer blogs have helped a lot in that respect. Then MS does something like this. On the one hand they say they are concerned about this threat and then, not too long into the future, they pull a move like this which says the exact opposite.
Are we still having serious problems with people not being able to use their computers 100% with Linux or are they talking about "out-of-the-box" with no configuration necessary?
I've had some experience with two different Toshiba laptops (which I think are great) and problems have been:
- Hibernation/Sleep
- Sound
- Wireless
- Grapics required a lot of configuring
I've seen enough messages from developers addressing some or all of the issues. The point being they are real problems to varying degrees for some people. I think Ubuntu is working really hard to address hiberation issues and I applaud them for that.In my case it is a mix of being able to use purchased hardware 100% and having no out-of-the-box configuration. For some reason expecting/wanting either gets you flamed on /.. I don't understand why. The laptop came with a DVD that puts the OS and other apps (generally crap) onto the hardware with no configuration other than the required network settings, account settings, etc. If I move to another OS, why is having the same expectation silly?
What makes you think the two codebases look similar enough, after all this time, to make pushing out patches easy? Safari has gone, and undoubtedly will continue, to go in a different direction. The codebase between the two will continue to grow apart not closer together.