1970's,80's,90's...Used to be that you could market a sucky movie to death and garner decent profits from all the sheeple that rush to see it based on that marketing.
Fast forward to today...enter Screenit.com, IMDB, (insert one of tons of movie review sites here).com. A huge percent of folks are online now, and they are learning about and using these sites to make better choices. So what's the problem?? LMAO (from the article):
"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."
Translation for the double-speak impaired: "We used to could lie faster than the truth could come out so it didn't matter whether the movie sucked or not, we could still make money."
If users were given the option to send in a proof of purchase or just reference their activiation codes they could receive, free of charge, a CD with all necessary updates and patches from MS for their OS?
Yeah - this would be expensive, but besides the fact that MS can obviously afford to do this don't you think that it would motivate MS management to take a more aggressive stance on security vulnerabilities in general?
As it stands today if a (home) user has to do a system restore (from the computer manufacturer CDs) or wipes and reloads thier OS for one reason or another, they will risk getting a virus just trying to connect to microsoft update to download the large number of updates available since they purchased their system/OS.
As a side note, what about all the folks that buy PCs that are already in the sales channel that aren't protected from the Blaster worm?? Take it home, hook up to internet, boom...virus. (speaking specifically about the many folks who don't know what a router or firewall is)
send an email to your PHB that says things like "fire hazard" "risk to operations" "danger to employees and $$$$ equiment" "violation of code" and/or "insurance risk". That should get you the authorization you need to do whatever needs to be done - which, as others have pointed out, is HIRE A PROFESSIONAL.
that Linux shouldn't necessarily be trying to emulate MS Windows' dekstop so much as making one that's better even though different.
Generally too many choices for the end user (read jane secretary, or joe PHB) are BAD because it confuses them and creates IT maintenence nightmares.
It is true that if you try to create a gui interface that is just like MS windows, except you differ in some crucial areas, the user will be put off by the "well windows doesn't do/have that" comparison. However, if the user expects it to be different (because it looks that way or obviously acts that way) then their expectation base is "Hm... this is neat, I will have to learn it" which creates a whole different set of expectations that are not driven by comparisons to MS Windows.
Unfortunately I am not so sure this would yield any useful data, as most MS Windows user accounts are defined as Administrators, and run more software titles than are available on Linux at the moment. Plus there are database applications (finance, purchasing, procurement, etc) that are optimized for MS Windows environment (i.e. no linux interface created - wine wouldn't count as it would be directly emulating the environment too which you are trying to compare).
According to your proposal you would get a theoretical crossectional relationship that really wouldn't reflect reality in the business environment.
Is it really fair that literally millions of $'s of business and government money and hundreds of man-hours of time must be lost due to Windows worms and virii??
Shouldn't MS be held accountable in some form or fashion for these costs?
This is utter madness!!
I like the text in the worm though (from the symantec site) "I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!! billy gates why do you make this possible ? Stop making money and fix your software!!" LOL.
Well Bill? What say you? Can I call you when my father-in-law calls me all confused (again) because he has "this windas erra that won't let me work on my files". Grrrrrrr.
I SAY WE FORCE MICROSOFT TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISTAKES. Oh wait...*slaps forehead* that's not a good idea either.
Linux needs this app, one like it, or needs Intuit's Quicken or (hee hee) MS's Money to port over, or all 4. Ayone wanna call Balmer and see if he's game?
"Trying to understand Linux as a "Windows substitute" is a doomed prospect."
Although I understand the point you are making, I must say that I hear the "switch to Linux" line all the time from the Linux community. If its not a substitute for Windows (in functionality and ease-of-use) then why would people switch??
I would love to switch, but its too complex and requires too much deep (programmer-type) knowledge to maintain/configure. I quite frankly just don't have time to screw with that.
"I'm beyond wanting to fiddle with my desktop PC..."
You are actually touching on a point that not too many techies really understand: The PC is a commodity. (yes, I said that) Its like a VCR, a microwave, a DVD player, a TV...
Point being this: People and business want to buy this tool and use it. There still is a large techie crowd that likes to roll thier own software and hardware, but the bulk of the users just want a working tool. The OS is part of that tool.
If the OS works flawlessly then its done its job. If it is unreasonably complex or unreasonably hard to use/configure/maintain, then I assert that the OS is a failure.
The great understanding that needs to take place is that it is not the techie crowd that should be the measuring stick for the "unreasonably complex...maintain" part, but the "masses" who use the tools who should be the measuring stick.
"Different can be better, but yes, there may be a learning curve... and that can be annoying for some."
I don't mind the curve, I mind the steep Mt. Everest glacially sub-zero temperature climb.
Windows got a lot of things right from the ease-of-use,Plug and Play,install,uninstall and GUI standpoint. There HAS to be a way for Linux to capitalize on that learning and still preserve the integrity of the OS design.
Us non-programmer types _cannot_ be expected to understand that you have to use (insert acronym here) command line or visit 123.org/RTFMNewbies to figure out how to unmount a CD drive.
My response would be (as you point out) "Well crap, I don't have this problem with Windows."
Its less stress for me to shell out $200 and know that I dont have to stay up at night trying to RTFM on unmounting devices or wgetting this or that... pegs my pain-in-the-a$$ meter quickly.
you have an excellent "deep-diving" understanding of the inner workings of Linux, but you have also highlighted a very common (and personal for me) annoyance - your solution requires this "deep-diving" knowledge. Its annoying to have to have this "deep-diving" requirement to setup, maintain, and use a Linux system. Like a previous poster said (paraphrasing) - most windows packages work straight from download without issues.
The internet is a big place. Everytime a site I like locks me out and asks for a subscription to access the content I move onto another (of the many) sites like it that don't charge. I just don't find it necessary to pay for the privelage of reading/downloading material online when Its so easy to get it free (legally by the way) elswhere in the world.
I'll look at ads all day long for this privilage (I understand they need to make money) or even donate once in a while, but I won't subscribe.
I pay for the important stuff that directly impacts my ability to make money or live the lifestyle I want to live. The rest is luxury that I can do without, especially if someone wants to nickel and dime me to death to access it.
If internet companies can build around my requirements I will give them my business/attention. If they don't, I go elswhere.
"If someone made a better media player, I'd be using it right now"
Well this has been hashed out more than enough, but the bottom line is that there are many other players out there that would do the job if it was easy(er) to plug into all the windows hooks and have them stick. Hiding WMP doesn't do this, it masks the problem.
I think that if MS made it easier for 3rd parties to hook into all the windows media calls and procedures we wouldn't see this issue come up because at that point everyone could truly replace WMP at their wish. That is the heart of the issue for the other embedded programs as well.
"The only way the beast can be stopped is a change in technology"
I would add that it doesn't necessarily involve a change in technology. Imagine a world where open source drives stable standards (file formats, program interfaces, etc). Imagine user interfaces and ease-of-use GUIs that are BETTER or JUST AS EASY to use as MS stuff. Now imagine PHBs suddenly connecting the dots and realizing that they get infrastructure cost reductions, sustained "ROI", and long term file format security for their business. After they finish creaming themselves you will see a stampede of PHB cattle falling over themselves to get on the open source bandwagon like they were running for water in the desert.
And just like cattle it will only take a few runners to motivate the herd.;-)
So open sourcers - Keep trucking, your time is at hand.
KDE is very well done overall, although there are a lot of seemingly "duplicate" type items in the menu trees (please keep in mind that this is from a novice linux user, and please be merciful accordingly:-) ). What I find difficult is deciphering which menu programs are "real and meaningful" to me:
Help Menus: When I tried SUSE 8.2 there was the KDE help center, and the SUSE help center. Try to search for help on something and I sometimes get referred to manual pages or other web sites for help (KDE help was worse about this). ??? very confusing for me and hard to get information. Often seems to take more time than I am willing to spend to get the info.
Control center vs. YAST. some overlapping items in each, and some confusing items in each. I found myself struggling to bounce between the two to try to understand why there were 2 interfaces to "control" things and which was the real method to do what I wanted. Not all tabs/menus had help buttons to guide me in my choices, and some that did were mercilessly technical (for a PHB like me).
Menu structure: Good, but its confusing to see multiple word processors, multiple terminals, multiple spreadsheet program, etc etc... good for choice but a little distracting.
There are a few more items I noticed but I can't remember specifics right now.
Amen brother. Anyone who wants the "man on the street" opinion - read the following:
If you REEEEEAlly want to win over the average joe and penetrate into the MS monopoly on the desktop, you HAVE to address (1) hardware compatability, and (2) ease of software setup, use, troubleshooting, problem resolution.
1st, backgrounders and qualifiers: I am a smart guy. I make almost 3 figures, I have a 4 year degree and am just shy of a masters. I work for one of the big computer companies. Our department's system admin reports to me. I hate microsoft's abuse of their monopoly. I aboslutely love the concept of Linux and open source. I use open office at home as well as MozillaFirebird.
I have tried and tried again to use Linux as my primary OS both at home and work, but quite frankly its a big pain in the A$$. Sure the hardware detection is getting better all the time, and the software tools are improving as well, but 3 huge mountains still remain: (1) compatibility with MS networks, (2) support for cutting edge hardware, and (3) cutting edge software titles available to Linux (ProE, Autocad, Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator).
In spite of everything you will try to flame me with please listen to this: I don't want to fsck with a command line to configure my PC - I want to click the dam menu and *bam* be done. I don't want to fsck with my hardware trying to get Linux to like it - I just want to plug the dam thin in and tell it where the drivers are (assuming it doesn't already recognize it). I want to be able to open the help center, type "setup samba" and have it provide step by step instructions not say things like "go to 1234.org and read the manual pages for more info" or "you may have to recompile your kernel". Quite frankly I don't give a rat's butt about kernels or.orgs. I want to use a tool and have it work. I want to buy a piece of hardware, plug it in, load the drivers from CD and use the dam thing. I will pay someone for that privilege. MS understands that, however evil their little hearts are.
THIS is why Linux can't break the "average joe" barrier.
I LOVE what you guys do, I DO want you do succeed. Please understand that the market you are trying to penetrate REQUIRES that you jump the above mentioned hurdles.
Slashdot Mirror
you can click on the english flag and it switches to English... good tool for turning off all the XP spyware
is that the gig is up.
1970's,80's,90's...Used to be that you could market a sucky movie to death and garner decent profits from all the sheeple that rush to see it based on that marketing.
Fast forward to today...enter Screenit.com, IMDB, (insert one of tons of movie review sites here).com. A huge percent of folks are online now, and they are learning about and using these sites to make better choices. So what's the problem?? LMAO (from the article):
"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."
Translation for the double-speak impaired: "We used to could lie faster than the truth could come out so it didn't matter whether the movie sucked or not, we could still make money."
Cry me a river you arrogant dork.
If users were given the option to send in a proof of purchase or just reference their activiation codes they could receive, free of charge, a CD with all necessary updates and patches from MS for their OS?
Yeah - this would be expensive, but besides the fact that MS can obviously afford to do this don't you think that it would motivate MS management to take a more aggressive stance on security vulnerabilities in general?
As it stands today if a (home) user has to do a system restore (from the computer manufacturer CDs) or wipes and reloads thier OS for one reason or another, they will risk getting a virus just trying to connect to microsoft update to download the large number of updates available since they purchased their system/OS.
As a side note, what about all the folks that buy PCs that are already in the sales channel that aren't protected from the Blaster worm?? Take it home, hook up to internet, boom...virus. (speaking specifically about the many folks who don't know what a router or firewall is)
There has to be a better solution to all this.
http://www.xp-antispy.org/
send an email to your PHB that says things like "fire hazard" "risk to operations" "danger to employees and $$$$ equiment" "violation of code" and/or "insurance risk". That should get you the authorization you need to do whatever needs to be done - which, as others have pointed out, is HIRE A PROFESSIONAL.
that Linux shouldn't necessarily be trying to emulate MS Windows' dekstop so much as making one that's better even though different.
Generally too many choices for the end user (read jane secretary, or joe PHB) are BAD because it confuses them and creates IT maintenence nightmares.
It is true that if you try to create a gui interface that is just like MS windows, except you differ in some crucial areas, the user will be put off by the "well windows doesn't do/have that" comparison. However, if the user expects it to be different (because it looks that way or obviously acts that way) then their expectation base is "Hm... this is neat, I will have to learn it" which creates a whole different set of expectations that are not driven by comparisons to MS Windows.
Unfortunately I am not so sure this would yield any useful data, as most MS Windows user accounts are defined as Administrators, and run more software titles than are available on Linux at the moment. Plus there are database applications (finance, purchasing, procurement, etc) that are optimized for MS Windows environment (i.e. no linux interface created - wine wouldn't count as it would be directly emulating the environment too which you are trying to compare).
According to your proposal you would get a theoretical crossectional relationship that really wouldn't reflect reality in the business environment.
Is it really fair that literally millions of $'s of business and government money and hundreds of man-hours of time must be lost due to Windows worms and virii??
Shouldn't MS be held accountable in some form or fashion for these costs?
This is utter madness!!
I like the text in the worm though (from the symantec site) "I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!!
billy gates why do you make this possible ? Stop making money and fix your software!!" LOL.
Well Bill? What say you? Can I call you when my father-in-law calls me all confused (again) because he has "this windas erra that won't let me work on my files". Grrrrrrr.
I SAY WE FORCE MICROSOFT TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISTAKES. Oh wait...*slaps forehead* that's not a good idea either.
Linux needs this app, one like it, or needs Intuit's Quicken or (hee hee) MS's Money to port over, or all 4. Ayone wanna call Balmer and see if he's game?
you have succesfully illustrated my point concerning the measuring stick. Thank you.
"Trying to understand Linux as a "Windows substitute" is a doomed prospect."
Although I understand the point you are making, I must say that I hear the "switch to Linux" line all the time from the Linux community. If its not a substitute for Windows (in functionality and ease-of-use) then why would people switch??
I would love to switch, but its too complex and requires too much deep (programmer-type) knowledge to maintain/configure. I quite frankly just don't have time to screw with that.
"I'm beyond wanting to fiddle with my desktop PC..."
You are actually touching on a point that not too many techies really understand: The PC is a commodity. (yes, I said that) Its like a VCR, a microwave, a DVD player, a TV...
Point being this: People and business want to buy this tool and use it. There still is a large techie crowd that likes to roll thier own software and hardware, but the bulk of the users just want a working tool. The OS is part of that tool.
If the OS works flawlessly then its done its job. If it is unreasonably complex or unreasonably hard to use/configure/maintain, then I assert that the OS is a failure.
The great understanding that needs to take place is that it is not the techie crowd that should be the measuring stick for the "unreasonably complex...maintain" part, but the "masses" who use the tools who should be the measuring stick.
"Different can be better, but yes, there may be a learning curve... and that can be annoying for some."
I don't mind the curve, I mind the steep Mt. Everest glacially sub-zero temperature climb.
Windows got a lot of things right from the ease-of-use,Plug and Play,install,uninstall and GUI standpoint. There HAS to be a way for Linux to capitalize on that learning and still preserve the integrity of the OS design.
Us non-programmer types _cannot_ be expected to understand that you have to use (insert acronym here) command line or visit 123.org/RTFMNewbies to figure out how to unmount a CD drive.
My response would be (as you point out) "Well crap, I don't have this problem with Windows."
Its less stress for me to shell out $200 and know that I dont have to stay up at night trying to RTFM on unmounting devices or wgetting this or that... pegs my pain-in-the-a$$ meter quickly.
you have an excellent "deep-diving" understanding of the inner workings of Linux, but you have also highlighted a very common (and personal for me) annoyance - your solution requires this "deep-diving" knowledge. Its annoying to have to have this "deep-diving" requirement to setup, maintain, and use a Linux system. Like a previous poster said (paraphrasing) - most windows packages work straight from download without issues.
concerning a mult-front war.
If everyone is their enemy they will lose whether they win a battle or not.
The internet is a big place. Everytime a site I like locks me out and asks for a subscription to access the content I move onto another (of the many) sites like it that don't charge. I just don't find it necessary to pay for the privelage of reading/downloading material online when Its so easy to get it free (legally by the way) elswhere in the world.
I'll look at ads all day long for this privilage (I understand they need to make money) or even donate once in a while, but I won't subscribe.
I pay for the important stuff that directly impacts my ability to make money or live the lifestyle I want to live. The rest is luxury that I can do without, especially if someone wants to nickel and dime me to death to access it.
If internet companies can build around my requirements I will give them my business/attention. If they don't, I go elswhere.
evil selfish executive bastards...
;-) )...
They SHOULD do jail time for this, but they won't.
which, of course, encourages the rest of them to be just as brazen.
I say we strip them naked, tie them to a pole in central park, and flog them with a bamboo cane on live TV.
Well it would make _me_ feel better anyway (watching, not being flogged
"If someone made a better media player, I'd be using it right now"
Well this has been hashed out more than enough, but the bottom line is that there are many other players out there that would do the job if it was easy(er) to plug into all the windows hooks and have them stick. Hiding WMP doesn't do this, it masks the problem.
I think that if MS made it easier for 3rd parties to hook into all the windows media calls and procedures we wouldn't see this issue come up because at that point everyone could truly replace WMP at their wish. That is the heart of the issue for the other embedded programs as well.
"The only way the beast can be stopped is a change in technology"
;-)
I would add that it doesn't necessarily involve a change in technology. Imagine a world where open source drives stable standards (file formats, program interfaces, etc). Imagine user interfaces and ease-of-use GUIs that are BETTER or JUST AS EASY to use as MS stuff. Now imagine PHBs suddenly connecting the dots and realizing that they get infrastructure cost reductions, sustained "ROI", and long term file format security for their business. After they finish creaming themselves you will see a stampede of PHB cattle falling over themselves to get on the open source bandwagon like they were running for water in the desert.
And just like cattle it will only take a few runners to motivate the herd.
So open sourcers - Keep trucking, your time is at hand.
but keep your enemies closer"
"know thy enemy"
"embrace and extend"
if you can't beat em, learn what they do best, replicate, and make it yours.
you do the math...
They are smart cookies.
KDE is very well done overall, although there are a lot of seemingly "duplicate" type items in the menu trees (please keep in mind that this is from a novice linux user, and please be merciful accordingly :-) ). What I find difficult is deciphering which menu programs are "real and meaningful" to me:
Help Menus: When I tried SUSE 8.2 there was the KDE help center, and the SUSE help center. Try to search for help on something and I sometimes get referred to manual pages or other web sites for help (KDE help was worse about this). ??? very confusing for me and hard to get information. Often seems to take more time than I am willing to spend to get the info.
Control center vs. YAST. some overlapping items in each, and some confusing items in each. I found myself struggling to bounce between the two to try to understand why there were 2 interfaces to "control" things and which was the real method to do what I wanted. Not all tabs/menus had help buttons to guide me in my choices, and some that did were mercilessly technical (for a PHB like me).
Menu structure: Good, but its confusing to see multiple word processors, multiple terminals, multiple spreadsheet program, etc etc... good for choice but a little distracting.
There are a few more items I noticed but I can't remember specifics right now.
Amen brother. Anyone who wants the "man on the street" opinion - read the following: If you REEEEEAlly want to win over the average joe and penetrate into the MS monopoly on the desktop, you HAVE to address (1) hardware compatability, and (2) ease of software setup, use, troubleshooting, problem resolution. 1st, backgrounders and qualifiers: I am a smart guy. I make almost 3 figures, I have a 4 year degree and am just shy of a masters. I work for one of the big computer companies. Our department's system admin reports to me. I hate microsoft's abuse of their monopoly. I aboslutely love the concept of Linux and open source. I use open office at home as well as MozillaFirebird. I have tried and tried again to use Linux as my primary OS both at home and work, but quite frankly its a big pain in the A$$. Sure the hardware detection is getting better all the time, and the software tools are improving as well, but 3 huge mountains still remain: (1) compatibility with MS networks, (2) support for cutting edge hardware, and (3) cutting edge software titles available to Linux (ProE, Autocad, Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator). In spite of everything you will try to flame me with please listen to this: I don't want to fsck with a command line to configure my PC - I want to click the dam menu and *bam* be done. I don't want to fsck with my hardware trying to get Linux to like it - I just want to plug the dam thin in and tell it where the drivers are (assuming it doesn't already recognize it). I want to be able to open the help center, type "setup samba" and have it provide step by step instructions not say things like "go to 1234.org and read the manual pages for more info" or "you may have to recompile your kernel". Quite frankly I don't give a rat's butt about kernels or .orgs. I want to use a tool and have it work. I want to buy a piece of hardware, plug it in, load the drivers from CD and use the dam thing. I will pay someone for that privilege. MS understands that, however evil their little hearts are.
THIS is why Linux can't break the "average joe" barrier.
I LOVE what you guys do, I DO want you do succeed. Please understand that the market you are trying to penetrate REQUIRES that you jump the above mentioned hurdles.