In principle, YES Google crossed the line, clearly. (Reasons are already espoused in other threads, too tiresome to repeat.) In practice, it probably depends on whether end users perceive a clear change in the performance of their PCs.
If the app isn't visually intrusive and doesn't hork throughput, I would guess most won't care one way or the other. Problem is, if the updater causes problems, the simplest option is to uninstall the software -- and who will reinstall it later?
What ticks me off is that with this choice Google seems to be catering those with a surfeit of bandwidth... I never have enough bandwdith, never; now you want to steal a slice of what little I have for your own purposes? Bad Google, bad, evil Google!
I envision a conversation between two typical users:
"Hey, you seen that new Google Earth? Looks cool."
"Yeah, but if you install it nothing else on your computer will work right."
Does anyone else find it interesting that the report itself costs $1,000?
"Hey, it must be worth something, I paid for it!" Or, "I paid for it!"
This reminds me of a survey I read about somewhere... can't seem to find it. One question read (something like), "You pay ten dollars for movie tickets but, halfway through the feature, you decide the movie really stinks. Do you (a) stay for the rest of it so as to get your money's worth, or (b) leave immediately?"
According to the source which I have not yet found, people who were fiscally successful tended to answer (b).
Time to leave the {insert your favorite software here} Movieplex, people!
Even though it was simple, hiding the details of how the car was disabled was the most effective. I'd argue the same can often be said for user level encryption.
Flawed analogy, I think.
I'd be interested to know whether the inline switch was part of a commercial anti-theft device, or installed by an amateur? If the latter, your example would seem to support the preference for D.I.Y.
Take the US mail for instance - it used to be a government ran cooperation, but went under private ownership and saved a ton of money by working for profits.
Are you high?
The U.S. Postal Service is an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," according to statute; it is wholly government-owned and, as such, is exempt from prosecution under the Sherman Act, according to the Supreme Court. I quote from this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=540&page=736
"The Postal Service has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. Its goals are not those of private enterprise. The most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even...."
PUH-leeze. Get the facts wrong, and you're MY meat.
I RTFA and the comments, and I realize that this constitutes a glaring security hole: even the owner of the data can gain access to it! For a REALLY secure system, I would expect to be barred access to any actual data I put in.
With that understanding, I am developing a new data security system using heretofore unrealized technology, and plan to bring it to market in the near future: look for products from BHS in stores during the month of No-never.
This message brought to you by the unique folks at BHS. Black Hole Systems: we are defined by our singularity!
If enough people started blocking ads, Smith warned that publishers would start charging for content. "In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said.
Does that mean crap newspaper chains would have to pony up some actual content?
It seems only yesterday when someone accused Mozilla of inappropriately bashing Netscape? Never mind the facts, let's just focus on the emotive language....
I'm concerned that people "out there" will interpret Netscape's problems as reflecting on Mozilla, which they most certainly should not.
I had a similar experience when a user in my organization couldn't open an Excel workbook -- Excel 2002 crashed whenever the user tried that specific XLS file. I checked first that Office XP was fully patched (it was); then I opened the offending file in Calc and identified the problem: a column which normally contained a simple formula somehow got corrupted. Instead of the formula, there was a long string of gobbledygook in each cell in that column. I replaced the string with the correct formula, saved it in XLS format and voilá! The user thanked me and I informed all of the IT support folks to keep a copy of OpenOffice handy for just such an occasion.
I would say that it's right on the money! Where MS decides to compete (i.e. there is money involved), the Open source movement follows to compete. That saves money all around!
Sure. Let's give kudos to the Nazis, too, because if it weren't for their evil, none of those interned in concentration camps could have demonstrated such amazing spirit.
rf0 had written: They work well if you don't change anything but that isn't a normal desktop computer. People want to install the latest screensaver, watch the latest flash animation...
mytec opined: I think it will be plausible when more business related software runs on the Linux platform.
Do I have to say a word? \\GRIN// The jokes tell themselves around here...
Judging by the links the Wheaton student included, the College appears to be using ZENworks, which is a separate product with its own client. Does Sophos use its own update client as McAfee does? If so, that's another, separate client. MBSA I've never used except as a local app.
My main security concern would be that these folks use Patchlink, which seems to require Active Directory -- are these folks integrating Novell's eDirectory and Active Directory? That can be chancy, as anyone knows who's seen a cracker leapfrog from a Windoze system to a connected server.
I use ZENworks and Active Directory, though not together [shudder], and I administer networks on multiple campuses for a commuter college; these measures seem reasonably less than draconian.
A valid question might be: What exactly are students worried about? Is the concern over authorities seeing their porn stashes, pirated software or MP3 and MPEG collections? Hey, you takes your chances when you connect to any network.
Re:A polished turd still smells
on
Linux for Non-Geeks
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
An Anonymous Coward wrote: I don't think you can make a complex-often-broken-thing fit into the mainstream by writing a book about the complex-often-broken-thing targeted to the mainstream.... I am the most tech savy person that I know.
The word is "savvy." ("Damn that spell-checker! Why didn't it do its job?!")
Out of curiosity, coward, what distros of Linux did you use? All of my dual-boot experiences with Windows (XP, 2K, ME) and Linux (Mandrake, Redhat, Fedora -- core 1 not core 2) have been good thus far.
You seem to imply that Linux is more complex than Windows; I would not say so. Different, more involved, sure. Windows is complex too, only Microsoft made it look simple... flash and ease of use sell, or Windows wouldn't rule the commercial PC market. But sometimes too simple, IMHO. I call it the law of conservation of intelligence: broadly, the more intelligence you build into the tool, the less intelligence the tool user is willing to expend to figure out how to make it work.
Regarding polished turds... I have a bias toward function, myself: I care comparatively little about the design or form if the underlying function is sufficient. Case in point: I maintain a few Linux servers whose interface consists of a command line. I have done little or nothing to make the administrative interface(s) user-friendly, which is of little matter if they work. In a pinch, I can direct a technician simply to reboot a server if it fouls up, but none have, since frankly they're too simple for much to go wrong. Polished, no. But it works.
Then you've got Windows, which looks great, but occasionally -- okay, frequently -- has problems. I tend to focus on security, as that's my field, and Windows is not terribly secure. Polished, yes.
Now which one, of Windows or Linux, would I call a polished turd?
Of course there's a big difference between servers and workstations, although Microsoft successfully blurred that distinction years ago... sure, I run Windows XP, though I've hacked it a bit so not EVERY process runs in the system context, and installed so many third party add-on security products (antivirus, antispyware, antietc.) that it's noticeably slower than the hour of the initial install.
I also run KDE, Gnome and Fluxbox. FWIW I tend to prefer Fluxbox; in fact I downloaded Blackbox for Windows and plan to give it a try.
Anyway, what do you want out of your PC? If you want simple setup and operation, or compatibility with specific third-party apps, go with Windows. (But backup your data often.) If you want something generally more reliable, less demanding on your hardware and easier to control, give Linux or BSD a try. And maybe buy a book like this next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "excitement."
Joy touts Apple as an example of a highly proprietary company being "innovative," as opposed to Open Source. Apparently he never heard of Darwin OS...
Is this kind of ambivalence to open source yet another example how, once you acquire something, you stop desiring it so much?
I.T. is the plumbing of the world... and no one calls a plumber until the toilet's overflowing.
In principle, YES Google crossed the line, clearly. (Reasons are already espoused in other threads, too tiresome to repeat.) In practice, it probably depends on whether end users perceive a clear change in the performance of their PCs.
If the app isn't visually intrusive and doesn't hork throughput, I would guess most won't care one way or the other. Problem is, if the updater causes problems, the simplest option is to uninstall the software -- and who will reinstall it later?
What ticks me off is that with this choice Google seems to be catering those with a surfeit of bandwidth... I never have enough bandwdith, never; now you want to steal a slice of what little I have for your own purposes? Bad Google, bad, evil Google!
I envision a conversation between two typical users:
"Hey, you seen that new Google Earth? Looks cool."
"Yeah, but if you install it nothing else on your computer will work right."
"Oh, dude... screw that."
This reminds me of a survey I read about somewhere... can't seem to find it. One question read (something like), "You pay ten dollars for movie tickets but, halfway through the feature, you decide the movie really stinks. Do you (a) stay for the rest of it so as to get your money's worth, or (b) leave immediately?" According to the source which I have not yet found, people who were fiscally successful tended to answer (b).
Time to leave the {insert your favorite software here} Movieplex, people!
Flawed analogy, I think.
I'd be interested to know whether the inline switch was part of a commercial anti-theft device, or installed by an amateur? If the latter, your example would seem to support the preference for D.I.Y.
Are you high?
The U.S. Postal Service is an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," according to statute; it is wholly government-owned and, as such, is exempt from prosecution under the Sherman Act, according to the Supreme Court. I quote from this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=540&page=736
"The Postal Service has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. Its goals are not those of private enterprise. The most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even...."
PUH-leeze. Get the facts wrong, and you're MY meat.
No, but it might constitute sabotage.
Oh great, so much less complicated. But not nearly so much fun.
Wouldn't Gandalf prefer a black hole?
With that understanding, I am developing a new data security system using heretofore unrealized technology, and plan to bring it to market in the near future: look for products from BHS in stores during the month of No-never.
This message brought to you by the unique folks at BHS. Black Hole Systems: we are defined by our singularity!
Hey, I was born with awful communications skills too! Everything got better after I learned speech though.
Point of order: once it goes, your memory never comes back.
No, but they did, once upon a time when every vendor had its own TCP/IP stack that you loaded on top of whatever flavor OS you were using.
If enough people started blocking ads, Smith warned that publishers would start charging for content. "In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said.
Does that mean crap newspaper chains would have to pony up some actual content?
It seems only yesterday when someone accused Mozilla of inappropriately bashing Netscape? Never mind the facts, let's just focus on the emotive language.... I'm concerned that people "out there" will interpret Netscape's problems as reflecting on Mozilla, which they most certainly should not.
I had a similar experience when a user in my organization couldn't open an Excel workbook -- Excel 2002 crashed whenever the user tried that specific XLS file. I checked first that Office XP was fully patched (it was); then I opened the offending file in Calc and identified the problem: a column which normally contained a simple formula somehow got corrupted. Instead of the formula, there was a long string of gobbledygook in each cell in that column. I replaced the string with the correct formula, saved it in XLS format and voilá! The user thanked me and I informed all of the IT support folks to keep a copy of OpenOffice handy for just such an occasion.
No, REALLY.
I would say that it's right on the money! Where MS decides to compete (i.e. there is money involved), the Open source movement follows to compete. That saves money all around!
Sure. Let's give kudos to the Nazis, too, because if it weren't for their evil, none of those interned in concentration camps could have demonstrated such amazing spirit.
WTF?
...dated 2001? Um, any chance its conclusions might be out of date as well?
Economic History Services (EH.net) review
Seems a much fairer review to me, though the author states at the outset that he may be biased since he's a Linux user.
Check those assumptions! Fee.org is a regular contributor to the WSJ, and we know how unbiased THAT rag is... [snort]
The sysadmin says that won't work on his server... but he's kindly allowing me to host my app on my own desktop! What a nice guy!!
rf0 had written:
They work well if you don't change anything but that isn't a normal desktop computer. People want to install the latest screensaver, watch the latest flash animation...
mytec opined:
I think it will be plausible when more business related software runs on the Linux platform.
Do I have to say a word? \\GRIN// The jokes tell themselves around here...
What are these mag-uh-zeens of which you speak? ...
OOhhHHHHhhhhhh--- you mean PAPER?! How barbaric!
Judging by the links the Wheaton student included, the College appears to be using ZENworks, which is a separate product with its own client. Does Sophos use its own update client as McAfee does? If so, that's another, separate client. MBSA I've never used except as a local app.
My main security concern would be that these folks use Patchlink, which seems to require Active Directory -- are these folks integrating Novell's eDirectory and Active Directory? That can be chancy, as anyone knows who's seen a cracker leapfrog from a Windoze system to a connected server.
I use ZENworks and Active Directory, though not together [shudder], and I administer networks on multiple campuses for a commuter college; these measures seem reasonably less than draconian.
A valid question might be: What exactly are students worried about? Is the concern over authorities seeing their porn stashes, pirated software or MP3 and MPEG collections? Hey, you takes your chances when you connect to any network.
An Anonymous Coward wrote:
I don't think you can make a complex-often-broken-thing fit into the mainstream by writing a book about the complex-often-broken-thing targeted to the mainstream.... I am the most tech savy person that I know.
The word is "savvy." ("Damn that spell-checker! Why didn't it do its job?!")
Out of curiosity, coward, what distros of Linux did you use? All of my dual-boot experiences with Windows (XP, 2K, ME) and Linux (Mandrake, Redhat, Fedora -- core 1 not core 2) have been good thus far.
You seem to imply that Linux is more complex than Windows; I would not say so. Different, more involved, sure. Windows is complex too, only Microsoft made it look simple... flash and ease of use sell, or Windows wouldn't rule the commercial PC market. But sometimes too simple, IMHO. I call it the law of conservation of intelligence: broadly, the more intelligence you build into the tool, the less intelligence the tool user is willing to expend to figure out how to make it work.
Regarding polished turds... I have a bias toward function, myself: I care comparatively little about the design or form if the underlying function is sufficient. Case in point: I maintain a few Linux servers whose interface consists of a command line. I have done little or nothing to make the administrative interface(s) user-friendly, which is of little matter if they work. In a pinch, I can direct a technician simply to reboot a server if it fouls up, but none have, since frankly they're too simple for much to go wrong. Polished, no. But it works.
Then you've got Windows, which looks great, but occasionally -- okay, frequently -- has problems. I tend to focus on security, as that's my field, and Windows is not terribly secure. Polished, yes.
Now which one, of Windows or Linux, would I call a polished turd?
Of course there's a big difference between servers and workstations, although Microsoft successfully blurred that distinction years ago... sure, I run Windows XP, though I've hacked it a bit so not EVERY process runs in the system context, and installed so many third party add-on security products (antivirus, antispyware, antietc.) that it's noticeably slower than the hour of the initial install.
I also run KDE, Gnome and Fluxbox. FWIW I tend to prefer Fluxbox; in fact I downloaded Blackbox for Windows and plan to give it a try.
Anyway, what do you want out of your PC? If you want simple setup and operation, or compatibility with specific third-party apps, go with Windows. (But backup your data often.) If you want something generally more reliable, less demanding on your hardware and easier to control, give Linux or BSD a try. And maybe buy a book like this next time.
(Last minute relevancy to topic -- yes!)