You just mentioned how ndiswrapper didn't work properly, then said open source drivers tend to be more stable. I hope ndiswrapper is the exception to the rule, or that doesn't make a great deal of sense;)
Manufacturers want other folks to write their drivers, as otherwise they have to spend the money themselves, on a market that is well under 10% of their prospective customers. Windows was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Linux doesn't have that luxury, unfortunately.
I have a firewall, no AV, and use IE, and I've never had a problem with malware or viruses. Any kind of firewall and your maxim of "don't do stupid things on the net" will save you, regardless of browser.
I think most Iraqis would take having to not slag-off Saddam to keep safe than having to dodge roving gangs of militia/US army/Blackwater guys shooting whatever moves. We in the west put Freedom up on this massively-tall pedestal and worship as if it's all that matters. When you get shot at trying to get your daily food, you realise security is far, FAR more important. Iraqis had that under Saddam (they did have to shut up about Saddam, though). Dead people can't vote, so freedom before security makes as much sense as food before oxygen.
Nope - chemical weapons are weapons which act through a direct chemical reaction with the target. That can be either being toxic, or, say, WP which burns on contact with skin. Explosives don't count, as it's not the chemical reaction that kills/injures, but the result of that (pressure shockwave, fire, shrapnel, etc.)
That's fair enough, but when it breaks, asking Apple to fix it for free is the unfair bit. If I decide to use a Dell PowerEdge server as a grated cheese dispenser, should Dell give me a new one when the new Mozarella-E bus I installed starts to smell delicious?
I wasn't saying Tim O'Reilly was a developer! Heck no. I was replying to Fatalis's post where he mentions developers understanding what Web 2.0 means. I agree with you. It's marketing bullshit of the highest calibre. Vague, emotive, and completely without substance. It's a fad, a trend, a fashion, and completely misses the point of what version numbers, and indeed the word "web" means.
Just because developers have jumped on the useless-marketing-drivel bandwagon doesn't mean the phrase has any validity:) It doesn't mean exactly the same thing to two or more people, so it doesn't mean anything. A phrase has to be defined for it to mean something, and Web 2.0 (owing to the fact it's a marketing construct and not an actual standard) has no overseeing, regulatory body, so it means exactly squat.
What about for repeat offenses? Get caught once, a slap on the wrist and some community service? Try it on again and then you go to the big house? That seems a bit fairer.
Sorry to reply to myself - case in point - my iTunes is using 252.6MB of memory, and peaks at up to 10% of my CPU usage, and it's not even playing any music.
He kind of has a point in the last paragraph. Apple releases software on Windows to entice people with the Aqua look and feel, but all the Apple software on Windows really is kludgy, slow, and poorly-written. They really do put aesthetics ahead of performance and efficiency. On Apple it's a different story entirely, but on Windows Apple software really does blow. iTunes, for example, eats memory like a starving memory-eater, has all kinds of ridiculously dangerous bugs (ie all your music disappearing, some permanently deleted, tags being rewritten for no apparent reason, etc.). Don't even get me started on QuickTime on Windows:)
The Service Pack analogy is the closest thing Windows users have to these big cat releases, as each "proper" version of Windows has massive differences, more so than OS X, which the user can see straight away. 2000 -> XP was massive, XP -> Vista was even greater. Comparing 10.4 and 10.5 so far doesn't seem to yield the amount of changes Windows users experience with each new version. I'm not defending the analogy, or saying the parent was right, simply providing a reason as to why people might think that way.
"Web 2.0" doesn't mean anything. Google Maps is just a website. It uses javascript and iFrames to achieve something approaching an application. Those two pieces of technology have been around since HTML4 was first conceived.
That's fair enough - selling them is pretty retarded, and does elevate a usually-civil offense to a criminal one. Jail time, though, seems even more retarded.
It's not £200 though, nearer £50. And for most folks who know Windows, they're more than happy to pay that to keep using what they're used to. I doubt people would pay a few hundred less for a car that has a strange steering wheel configuration they've never seen before, and this is pretty much the same (even though I'm using tired car analogies - please forgive me!)
How do I know? Because people don't go with second best for no reason. You don't go into a restaurant wanting a steak then order a salad for no reason. It's human nature. People want the best, people want to get the most out of everything. If one is to settle for something second-best, there's always another reason why - be it ideological, price-based, schedule-wise, or other. People don't just settle for second best.
It is a possiblilty that people might be happy with Linux, but it's a certainty that those folks will also be happy with Windows. That's what I meant about compromise - with Linux, for all its strenghts, the very fact it's not Windows and doesn't run all Windows software and support all the same hardware as Windows means it's not offering the full range of features as Windows. Coming with "many" of the applications they need is not as good as coming with "all" the applications they need, which is the case when the windows comes with Office. At least with Windows you have the opportunity to run Office, as opposed to OpenOffice, which again for all its strengths, isn't 100% compatible with 99% of the office software out there (MS Office).
I'm not flaming anyone, just pointing out that when you remove the ideological reasons for avoiding Microsoft or using Linux, Windows makes more sense. As it's possible to buy a computer without Windows, your last point is moot.
That's because an OEM copy of Windows is considerably cheaper than the off-the-shelf version, hence the price difference, as the company that's selling them bought hundreds (or thousands) of licenses at once.
Most people want an OS that can do 100% of what they want. Just like you wouldn't buy a car that can only do 90% of what you want. People don't want to compromise when using an OS, so they go for the one that does most of what they want. Windows, for all its ills, is that OS.
MS won't get shafted, as that shop will just reach for the nearest copy of Windows Whatever, install it, and know that when problems arise, they'll come back and be easily able to fix them. The only people getting shafted in that scenario are the customers, as they didn't get their hands on the subsidised price of Windows, but the off-the-shelf full-blown price. Microsoft gets to make more money, and so does the shop.
We could have that great world now if those other operating systems functioned as required on the hardware, and that the shop could support it. That's the main problem. Just as we're seeing with Dell's (latest) foray into the Linux world, it's not just about Microsoft throwing its weight around, but that not every OS is created equal, and the best-meaning, most altruistic OS might have some serious shortcomings (just the problem of it not being as well-known to their support staff, for example, means the company in question has to either train folks or hire new folks, something that costs money - an investment on the future not every company can make). Microsoft is just fighting to keep Windows on that list of OSes, nothing more. Apple's a company that's fighting to keep itself off that list, and Linux (any variety) is trying to get on that list, but there are still serious hurdles to overcome before that can happen on a massive scale, hardware compatibility being a rather large one, software availability being another (as more and more people want to play games on their computers, thanks to the available hardware improving so drastically recently).
Are you confusing activation with the WGA snaffoo that happened a few weeks back? People can use Windows without WGA, and can use it without activation for 30 days. The activation servers are *never* down for more than 30 days, and the WGA problem affected a few thousand people temporarily, and was fixed very shortly after it happened. No-one's windows wouldn't install, no-one was locked out of their PC.
Slashdot Mirror
You just mentioned how ndiswrapper didn't work properly, then said open source drivers tend to be more stable. I hope ndiswrapper is the exception to the rule, or that doesn't make a great deal of sense ;)
Manufacturers want other folks to write their drivers, as otherwise they have to spend the money themselves, on a market that is well under 10% of their prospective customers. Windows was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Linux doesn't have that luxury, unfortunately.
Unless you're using the Windows unattended install, in which case it's 0 keys to press.
I have a firewall, no AV, and use IE, and I've never had a problem with malware or viruses. Any kind of firewall and your maxim of "don't do stupid things on the net" will save you, regardless of browser.
How can you hate a technology? Seems a bit strong, surely...
It's usually down to the carrier whether the phone is locked, not the mobile phone manufacturer.
I think most Iraqis would take having to not slag-off Saddam to keep safe than having to dodge roving gangs of militia/US army/Blackwater guys shooting whatever moves. We in the west put Freedom up on this massively-tall pedestal and worship as if it's all that matters. When you get shot at trying to get your daily food, you realise security is far, FAR more important. Iraqis had that under Saddam (they did have to shut up about Saddam, though). Dead people can't vote, so freedom before security makes as much sense as food before oxygen.
Nope - chemical weapons are weapons which act through a direct chemical reaction with the target. That can be either being toxic, or, say, WP which burns on contact with skin. Explosives don't count, as it's not the chemical reaction that kills/injures, but the result of that (pressure shockwave, fire, shrapnel, etc.)
Not really. Explosives explode, napalm and white phosphorous burn.
That's fair enough, but when it breaks, asking Apple to fix it for free is the unfair bit. If I decide to use a Dell PowerEdge server as a grated cheese dispenser, should Dell give me a new one when the new Mozarella-E bus I installed starts to smell delicious?
I wasn't saying Tim O'Reilly was a developer! Heck no. I was replying to Fatalis's post where he mentions developers understanding what Web 2.0 means. I agree with you. It's marketing bullshit of the highest calibre. Vague, emotive, and completely without substance. It's a fad, a trend, a fashion, and completely misses the point of what version numbers, and indeed the word "web" means.
Just because developers have jumped on the useless-marketing-drivel bandwagon doesn't mean the phrase has any validity :) It doesn't mean exactly the same thing to two or more people, so it doesn't mean anything. A phrase has to be defined for it to mean something, and Web 2.0 (owing to the fact it's a marketing construct and not an actual standard) has no overseeing, regulatory body, so it means exactly squat.
What about for repeat offenses? Get caught once, a slap on the wrist and some community service? Try it on again and then you go to the big house? That seems a bit fairer.
Sorry to reply to myself - case in point - my iTunes is using 252.6MB of memory, and peaks at up to 10% of my CPU usage, and it's not even playing any music.
He kind of has a point in the last paragraph. Apple releases software on Windows to entice people with the Aqua look and feel, but all the Apple software on Windows really is kludgy, slow, and poorly-written. They really do put aesthetics ahead of performance and efficiency. On Apple it's a different story entirely, but on Windows Apple software really does blow. iTunes, for example, eats memory like a starving memory-eater, has all kinds of ridiculously dangerous bugs (ie all your music disappearing, some permanently deleted, tags being rewritten for no apparent reason, etc.). Don't even get me started on QuickTime on Windows :)
The Service Pack analogy is the closest thing Windows users have to these big cat releases, as each "proper" version of Windows has massive differences, more so than OS X, which the user can see straight away. 2000 -> XP was massive, XP -> Vista was even greater. Comparing 10.4 and 10.5 so far doesn't seem to yield the amount of changes Windows users experience with each new version. I'm not defending the analogy, or saying the parent was right, simply providing a reason as to why people might think that way.
This isn't Schrödinger's cat here - it very well might be true. I think you mean it hasn't been confirmed until Apple says it.
"Web 2.0" doesn't mean anything. Google Maps is just a website. It uses javascript and iFrames to achieve something approaching an application. Those two pieces of technology have been around since HTML4 was first conceived.
... is just maketing drivel. Anyone who uses that term to describe anything in particular is talking out of their ass.
That's fair enough - selling them is pretty retarded, and does elevate a usually-civil offense to a criminal one. Jail time, though, seems even more retarded.
It's not £200 though, nearer £50. And for most folks who know Windows, they're more than happy to pay that to keep using what they're used to. I doubt people would pay a few hundred less for a car that has a strange steering wheel configuration they've never seen before, and this is pretty much the same (even though I'm using tired car analogies - please forgive me!)
How do I know? Because people don't go with second best for no reason. You don't go into a restaurant wanting a steak then order a salad for no reason. It's human nature. People want the best, people want to get the most out of everything. If one is to settle for something second-best, there's always another reason why - be it ideological, price-based, schedule-wise, or other. People don't just settle for second best.
It is a possiblilty that people might be happy with Linux, but it's a certainty that those folks will also be happy with Windows. That's what I meant about compromise - with Linux, for all its strenghts, the very fact it's not Windows and doesn't run all Windows software and support all the same hardware as Windows means it's not offering the full range of features as Windows. Coming with "many" of the applications they need is not as good as coming with "all" the applications they need, which is the case when the windows comes with Office. At least with Windows you have the opportunity to run Office, as opposed to OpenOffice, which again for all its strengths, isn't 100% compatible with 99% of the office software out there (MS Office).
I'm not flaming anyone, just pointing out that when you remove the ideological reasons for avoiding Microsoft or using Linux, Windows makes more sense. As it's possible to buy a computer without Windows, your last point is moot.
That's because an OEM copy of Windows is considerably cheaper than the off-the-shelf version, hence the price difference, as the company that's selling them bought hundreds (or thousands) of licenses at once.
Most people want an OS that can do 100% of what they want. Just like you wouldn't buy a car that can only do 90% of what you want. People don't want to compromise when using an OS, so they go for the one that does most of what they want. Windows, for all its ills, is that OS.
MS won't get shafted, as that shop will just reach for the nearest copy of Windows Whatever, install it, and know that when problems arise, they'll come back and be easily able to fix them. The only people getting shafted in that scenario are the customers, as they didn't get their hands on the subsidised price of Windows, but the off-the-shelf full-blown price. Microsoft gets to make more money, and so does the shop.
We could have that great world now if those other operating systems functioned as required on the hardware, and that the shop could support it. That's the main problem. Just as we're seeing with Dell's (latest) foray into the Linux world, it's not just about Microsoft throwing its weight around, but that not every OS is created equal, and the best-meaning, most altruistic OS might have some serious shortcomings (just the problem of it not being as well-known to their support staff, for example, means the company in question has to either train folks or hire new folks, something that costs money - an investment on the future not every company can make). Microsoft is just fighting to keep Windows on that list of OSes, nothing more. Apple's a company that's fighting to keep itself off that list, and Linux (any variety) is trying to get on that list, but there are still serious hurdles to overcome before that can happen on a massive scale, hardware compatibility being a rather large one, software availability being another (as more and more people want to play games on their computers, thanks to the available hardware improving so drastically recently).
Are you confusing activation with the WGA snaffoo that happened a few weeks back? People can use Windows without WGA, and can use it without activation for 30 days. The activation servers are *never* down for more than 30 days, and the WGA problem affected a few thousand people temporarily, and was fixed very shortly after it happened. No-one's windows wouldn't install, no-one was locked out of their PC.