You know, Windows XP is far more reliable that Windows 98 SE. I'd be interested to see what process was causing the problems. Most likely something to do with WMI, which I agree is a bit silly on personal desktops.
Interestingly, Microsoft changed their user interface to prompt users when they try to do something that gains elevated privileges. Seems to me that they have done this because of fundamental problems with security. Pity they did it in such a brain dead fashion!
I'm confused how this is neat technology, given that this will only work if you align someone to a two dimensional political spectrum. In other words, the core premise is pretty stupid.
I wonder how many bloggers will enjoy being pigeon-holed into being a "liberal" because they support same-sex marriage, or how many will be called "right-wing" or "conservative" because they support gun ownership? For that matter, what's Microsoft going to do when they find a blogger who's a same-sex supporting gun owner? BSOD?
Actually, you can get too much money. The WMF needs $x to keep it all running, pay for staff. They don't need anything more than that.
And no, you can't keep out nepotism and cronyism by just restricting ads. However, the more the money floating about, the higher the risk of it occuring.
I notice that you still haven't covered my other point: undue and unwanted influence by advertisers on content.
You totally miss the point. I have no problem with money, indeed I work to make money, to keep me and my family provided for.
But when someone gives you money for advertising on a project like Wikipedia, they basically want something for that money. Now it would be nice to say that they only want their ad on the project. But it won't work like that. They'll most likely want editorial control also.
Then you have the problem with what happens with all that money. The WMF could make a lot of money out of ads. But it would be far more than what is actually required, and I wonder if it won't cause cronyism, nepotism and greed.
Hey bone head, how many times does it need to be said that OUTLOOK IS NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. Anyone using Outlook as a mail program is using it wrong.
Learn to read please. Nobody is talking about Outlook's bloat (or alleged bloat), least of all me - as I pointed out before, I use it for calendaring, etc. on a regular basis. The complaint is that it corrupts data.
My friend, can I suggest you are the pot calling the kettle black?
You said that OUTLOOK IS NOT AN EMAIL PROGRAM (in caps, no less), now you are saying that it more than just an email program. You'll get no argument from me here, but the fact is that most people use it primarily for email. Many corporations also uses it for other things, this is true. You really can't tell people they are using it wrongly for just email when email is a main function of the application.
Another idea would be to store the files in a non-binary format. I have no idea why Microsoft likes everything in binary formats (probably due to COM+ style streams or OLE documents), but for whatever reason their formats suck and are not designed for large amounts of data.
Look, you might not thing so, but Outlook is used by a whole stack of people as an email program.
There are definitely others who maximize the use of it's other features, but at the end of the day it is still a program that sends, receives and stores emails. What part of that don't you get?
Hey, I'd be quite happy if everyone moved away from using Outlook as a mail program. I'm sure a lot of IT support companies would too.
But I'm afraid that you are wrong. It most certainly is a mail program, and the vast majority of people use it as one. While it's nice to be able to have global calendars, if it didn't have mail functionality it would be less than useful and I doubt corporations would use it.
It's also a PIM, but I'm afraid that it most definitely is still a mail program. It sends and receives email, quite successfully actually and has been designed to integrated with POP3, IMAP and various Exchange mail protocols.
It's all very well and good to say that it's a PIM, but a major function of the program is to send, receive and store email. That's one reason of many why the White House uses it. And believe me, it doesn't store large quantities of emails very well at all.
Actually, I use it every day for calendaring, meetings, the journal function, shared folders and many other things.
If Outlook cannot store email properly, then it's pretty screwed. It's all very well to say that it's a PIM, but if it can't store data without corrupting it unexpected, then that's pretty stupid. How come every other mail client can handle this OK but Outlook cannot? I thought that Outlook was meant to be an enterprise app!
Comment 1: That's not how copyright works. No explanation of why. Comment 2: Really? How so? Comment 3: Bad summary. Comment 4: Actually, copyright does work that way. Comment 5 (your comment): I have nothing to say, but I'll try and take you down a peg or two by making an inane comment.
The bottom line is: you haven't actually contributed anything yourself. Reread your own comment - it's not exactly full of information - interest or insightful.
It's primary function would be to store, send and receive emails. Does it do that well? Sure, it sends and receives emails fine, but it sure as heck can't store them correctly. Like the parent says, what sort of idiot decided that a 2GB limitation would be a good idea for a PST file? And what sort of moron let's it save past this point, corrupting the file?!?
Slashdot Mirror
For goodness sake, will SOMEONE mod that post up please? Best explanation of anything I've seen in a long time!
You know, Windows XP is far more reliable that Windows 98 SE. I'd be interested to see what process was causing the problems. Most likely something to do with WMI, which I agree is a bit silly on personal desktops.
I think it would be useful to have a graphical app that dealt with setting up gksudo.
However, I thought that PolicyKit was meant to deal with this sort of shenanigans?
Interestingly, Microsoft changed their user interface to prompt users when they try to do something that gains elevated privileges. Seems to me that they have done this because of fundamental problems with security. Pity they did it in such a brain dead fashion!
Evidently uses the default editor.
GNOME 2.0? Isn't this ancient history?
I'm confused how this is neat technology, given that this will only work if you align someone to a two dimensional political spectrum. In other words, the core premise is pretty stupid.
I wonder how many bloggers will enjoy being pigeon-holed into being a "liberal" because they support same-sex marriage, or how many will be called "right-wing" or "conservative" because they support gun ownership? For that matter, what's Microsoft going to do when they find a blogger who's a same-sex supporting gun owner? BSOD?
My words aren't indicative of naivete, just reality. When you can't maintain impartiality on Wikipedia, EVERYTHING falls apart.
Actually, you can get too much money. The WMF needs $x to keep it all running, pay for staff. They don't need anything more than that.
And no, you can't keep out nepotism and cronyism by just restricting ads. However, the more the money floating about, the higher the risk of it occuring.
I notice that you still haven't covered my other point: undue and unwanted influence by advertisers on content.
You totally miss the point. I have no problem with money, indeed I work to make money, to keep me and my family provided for.
But when someone gives you money for advertising on a project like Wikipedia, they basically want something for that money. Now it would be nice to say that they only want their ad on the project. But it won't work like that. They'll most likely want editorial control also.
Then you have the problem with what happens with all that money. The WMF could make a lot of money out of ads. But it would be far more than what is actually required, and I wonder if it won't cause cronyism, nepotism and greed.
Can someone please mod up that post?
Don't listen to ebooks in the car folks. It's distracting.
There's just no way to concentrate on the book when you are dodging traffic and other drivers.
Won't someone think of the publishers?
Rubbish. A Wikipedia that doesn't even try for NPOV, impartiality or any of the core things that make up the project now is not worthwhile at all.
Won't people stop with the stupid advertising nonsense already? Not everything is about money!
Learn to read please. Nobody is talking about Outlook's bloat (or alleged bloat), least of all me - as I pointed out before, I use it for calendaring, etc. on a regular basis. The complaint is that it corrupts data.
My friend, can I suggest you are the pot calling the kettle black?
You said that OUTLOOK IS NOT AN EMAIL PROGRAM (in caps, no less), now you are saying that it more than just an email program. You'll get no argument from me here, but the fact is that most people use it primarily for email. Many corporations also uses it for other things, this is true. You really can't tell people they are using it wrongly for just email when email is a main function of the application.
Welcome aboard brother, welcome aboard.
Please, stay off Wikipedia then. Wikipedia doesn't need to document that Joe Blogg's left nostril is 5 millimeters wider than his right.
Another idea would be to store the files in a non-binary format. I have no idea why Microsoft likes everything in binary formats (probably due to COM+ style streams or OLE documents), but for whatever reason their formats suck and are not designed for large amounts of data.
What, we need to use Outlook Express and Outlook?
Look, you might not thing so, but Outlook is used by a whole stack of people as an email program.
There are definitely others who maximize the use of it's other features, but at the end of the day it is still a program that sends, receives and stores emails. What part of that don't you get?
Hey, I'd be quite happy if everyone moved away from using Outlook as a mail program. I'm sure a lot of IT support companies would too.
But I'm afraid that you are wrong. It most certainly is a mail program, and the vast majority of people use it as one. While it's nice to be able to have global calendars, if it didn't have mail functionality it would be less than useful and I doubt corporations would use it.
Repeat after me:
OUTLOOK IS A MAIL PROGRAM!
It's also a PIM, but I'm afraid that it most definitely is still a mail program. It sends and receives email, quite successfully actually and has been designed to integrated with POP3, IMAP and various Exchange mail protocols.
It's all very well and good to say that it's a PIM, but a major function of the program is to send, receive and store email. That's one reason of many why the White House uses it. And believe me, it doesn't store large quantities of emails very well at all.
Actually, I use it every day for calendaring, meetings, the journal function, shared folders and many other things.
If Outlook cannot store email properly, then it's pretty screwed. It's all very well to say that it's a PIM, but if it can't store data without corrupting it unexpected, then that's pretty stupid. How come every other mail client can handle this OK but Outlook cannot? I thought that Outlook was meant to be an enterprise app!
Here's an idea: why don't you bugger off and die. You added nothing to the discussion, and merely made things more confusing.
Interesting.
Comment 1: That's not how copyright works. No explanation of why.
Comment 2: Really? How so?
Comment 3: Bad summary.
Comment 4: Actually, copyright does work that way.
Comment 5 (your comment): I have nothing to say, but I'll try and take you down a peg or two by making an inane comment.
The bottom line is: you haven't actually contributed anything yourself. Reread your own comment - it's not exactly full of information - interest or insightful.
That still makes no sense. Copyright does work like that.
Really? And, what, precisely, is it meant to do?
It's primary function would be to store, send and receive emails. Does it do that well? Sure, it sends and receives emails fine, but it sure as heck can't store them correctly. Like the parent says, what sort of idiot decided that a 2GB limitation would be a good idea for a PST file? And what sort of moron let's it save past this point, corrupting the file?!?