There is still something that you apparently miss: Windows has vulnerabilities
There is still something that you apparently miss: Every Operating System since the dawn of time has vulnerabilities.
Humor me. Let's work backward in time, alright? Vista was released, in part, to correct or patch vulnerabilities in XP SP3. And, XP SP3 was released to patch vulnerabilities in XP SP2. XP SP2 was released to patch XP SP1. And so forth.
...and going back further Berkley patched vulnerabilities for the Morris worm. This is pointless.
Having stated that my fresh install of XP SP2 was infected immediately after connecting to the web, you declare that XP SP2 was a safe operating system, and that stuff like that isn't possible. Or, at least impossible for a "properly configured" system.
That's right. One of the things I listed was exposed, and that's how they cracked you.
Then, why does MS waste their time trying to make their OS more secure, if it is so secure that SP2 couldn't be compromised, out of the box?
Why does OpenBSD waste their time trying to make their OS more secure, if it is so secure that 4.4 couldn't be compromised, out of the box?
Really, you're not making any points here - this is foolish.
No, you're just so blinded by zealotry that you won't accept the fact that maybe you did something wrong.
I know what I did with that machine,
Did you follow NIST's or SAN's advice for machine configuration?
I know the firewall was turned on,
Did you look at the exceptions?
I know that I had an antivirus installed.
You said that it flagged the attacks. Did the antivirus installation disable the firewall in favor of using its own buggy implementation?
I also know that I felt secure in the knowledge that crackers and script kiddies don't waste time scanning lame-ass dial up networks.
All networks are hostile.
All the same, the machine was hijacked in front of my eyes. You may believe it, you may dismiss it, but you can't win an argument in which you accuse me of "changing something".
Okay, fine, you didn't change anything. Was ICS enabled? What was in the exception list? Was file sharing turned on? These are obvious things to check.
Fresh, out of the box installation, hijacked. You can google for more accounts of similar experiences - or not, as you choose.
All of which have one of the issues that I previously listed wrong with them.
The Windows Firewall when properly configured deflects inbound attacks just fine. Any successful attack is due to improperly configuring the machine.
Nope. Windows firewall runs by default on XP SP2, if you'll recall. I did NOT disable the firewall. 100% clean install, all default values, nothing changed.
You had to have changed something. Either you had filesharing enabled, you configured an exception rule, you configured ICS, or Avast disabled the firewall.
A properly configured Windows Firewall (even pre-SP2) doesn't have any issues rejecting inbound traffic.
In my own personal experience, I've taken possession of a totally dicked up Windows box, formatted, installed Windows from CD, installed a few apps from CD (avast included) then connected to the internet for updates. Within ten minutes, the machine was infected with yet more malware.
I call bullshit. The only way that you could have accomplished this is to purposely disable the Windows Firewall and connect the machine directly to the internet.
That's just stupid, no matter which operating system you're using.
Interesting examples you choose to use, and how you're trying to portray them as the norm rather than the exception.
It's what you've been doing the entire time.
People who use VIM or Emacs are power users, chances are they're gonna run them from the terminal regardless of where they appear on the menu.
That's speculation, and is completely irrelevant. The launchers are in the Accessories category, which is one big list. That doesn't help with finding the application any more than the way Windows does it.
The "Accessories" menu is for the oddball applications which don't fit into any other category,
The point that it's for "oddball" applications is irrelevant. The fact that the applications were categorized as "oddball" is the problem. The default categorization on Linux does not necessarily make it easier to find applications than on Windows.
which is always gonna be a lot smaller on Linux because all the regular stuff that does fit into a category is in that category.
That's pure speculation.
You're right in the fact that it's no more arbitrary than the "all programs", other than it's been filtered and listed alphabetically.
All Programs is also listed alphabetically.
but these things are part of getting used to the distro you use,
That's an apologist's argument. You don't have to convince me to use Linux; I've been using it since 1993.
Open Office Draw is a strange example and one I agree with you on. The rest of the Open Office suite appears under the Office menu, it's odd that one part of it does not.
That's the point; it's not easier, just different.
Most of the time Linux applications won't start at boot unless you tell them to, the exception being server daemons. Other applications do occasionally have stuff that do, like your Novell Evolution notifier.
The exact same thing can be said about Windows.
Of course there's a trade off again, that you can have it set to run at boot automatically or let the user do that step on the understanding that if they don't know about it, or know how that they will assume it's not working.
Ditto.
The "infinite number of places" a menu item can be in Linux fits neatly into a single/usr/share/applications/ which by my count is one place.
There are also files in/etc and in the user's home directory. Three places. That's one more place than the absolutely insane two places you were complaining about in Windows.
You're right in the fact that it's a back end location, the user only sees the menu.
Exactly like under Windows. See how this argument is completely pointless?
The point is that your view of Windows isn't based on actual facts. The fact that you're dredging up ten year old FUD and quoting it as gospel should maybe clue you in that you're acting on your emotions to an extent. I mean, do you see people in this day and age complaining that it takes Linux 20 minutes to copy a 4 meg file? No, that would silly, and people would point out the fallacy. So it shouldn't surprise you when you get called out for doing the same thing. I will never understand this type of slavish devotion towards a software platform. As far as I'm concerned, they all suck immensely.
Now, I'm going to go back messing with GNOME-Do in Ubuntu running in VirtualBox on Windows Vista. Have a wonderful day.
When a package is installed in Linux, the shortcut is put in it's category in the menu. If you install Firefox you know it will appear under something like "Internet / Browsers" or even just "Internet".
It also places applications like Emacs and Vim in "Accessories". That's just about as arbitrary a place as the Start Menu. Furthermore, between releases the categorization of an application can change. So after you get used to it being under "Editors", it suddenly changes to "Accessories".
In Windows it adds a Mozilla Firefox sub-menu with various Firefox, Firefox Safe Mode etc to the end of the list.
Yes, it groups everything related to the application in the same menu item. That's much better than dividing OpenOffice up between "Office" and "Graphics". "I want my office drawing application. Where is it? Oh, yeah, it's in the Graphics menu away from everything else related to the application."
If a user forgets it's a Mozilla application they're not looking for "Mozilla".
The just go to the top of the menu and select "Internet", or they recognize the icon, or they type "firefox" into the search box, or they type "internet" into the search box.
If you have a lot of applications installed you're looking through a long unordered list to find the shortcut.
It's sorted alphabetically, and contains a visible, easily accessible search box and a scrollbar. Under Ubuntu 9.04, the "Accessories" menu is of a similar size and has scroll pads. The thing it lacks is a clearly visible search. I don't see how the Ubuntu version is any better than the Windows version. It is not any more usable, and even lacks features that the Windows menu has.
Not to mention the fact that in Windows there are two places these shortcuts go, all users and current user,
Yeah, and on Linux there are an infinite number of places where a menu item can be because they're defined by configuration files that have the ability to include other files from arbitrary places in the filesystem. So what?
which is not very apparent on the front facing end,
As with Linux, the user never sees this. It's just a menu.
or programs which have no need to run at boot deciding to add themselves into the start folder.
Yeah, so what? Linux does exactly the same thing. I certainly didn't ask for Linux to start up "Evolution Alarm Notifier", but it's in my startup applications. I don't even use Evolution, so why is it in my startup applications?
If your Windows installer does clears the mess after a... the developers should have had the courtesy to do.
Your information is outdated. If the installer creates the shortcut, it is deleted provided that you did not move the shortcut yourself.
Hell, Windows allows them to throw in links, shortcuts, toolbars anywhere they like at install time
First of all, this is no different than any other operating system that has a packager that runs as root. Secondly, Windows does not allow installation to some areas of the filesystem. Third, Windows also restricts installers from installing to some areas of the file system without explicit user permission.
The same applies to the "all programs" menu where stuff is added at the end of the list, often by the vendor, so you can easily have to look through 2 or 3 random ordered columns to find the link you're looking for.
This is no different than when an application is installed on Ubuntu and updates the KDE, Gnome, or Xfce menu.
In theory newly installed applications also list on the add / remove programs, which is sketchy and curiously has no way to "add" programs, only remove or reinstall what's already listed as installed.
This is based on outdated information.
I'd love to see a screen capture of a virus prompting the user for permission to install.
Viruses don't bother calling the installer and instead use shellcode exactly the same way that they've done on other operating systems starting with the Morris worm.
Microsoft's partners won't be happy, many of their business models rely on Windows being shit and constantly needing protection and cleaning. Sarcasm aside, the lack of this is another reason why Windows is plagued with malware.
This is based on completely accurate information.;)
All systems do, but running the default user as admin bypasses all of that... by default.
This is based on outdated information.
UAC is Microsoft's attempt at fixing that and giving (kinda) sudo-ish functionality to Windows.
This is only one of the measures in place to fix this.
It was clunky in Vista,... "enable stuff by default" mode because anything disabled can easily be seen wrongly as broken by the user.
That is not the path that Microsoft is taking with Windows 7.
A little education is the key here... The "Linux is a scary and hard to use" line weakens with every user who learns the basics of how their PC works.
Most computer users are not scared of Linux, because they do not know that it even exists.
The amount of uninstallable debris that builds up...cleaning up after such installers rather awkward.
That's a troll based on outdated information. Stop spreading false information.
And you've seriously waved a magic wand at, and this... adware and vaguely legal "monitoring your experience" spyware.
That completely ignored any information in my reply. You've also added a completely offtopic rant about spyware that ignores the fact that Linux software vendors do and have done this in the past.
Whether this is the fault of the developers... clean up after themselves.
I agree. The point being that it is completely without merit to blame Microsoft for something developers do that is contrary to the documentation. It is as much without merit as it would be to blame RedHat for a poorly written rpm.
These sorts of mess can certainly happen under Linux, but the debris left behind tends to be much, much smaller.
This is anecdotal information that I disagree with.
And because the installers are better documented and more transparent, it's usually much simpler to clean up.
This is an opinion based on outdated information or ignorance. Creating a proper installer on Windows is trivial and well documented.
No it isn't. The only time an uninstall script doesn't work is when developers use custom actions. The same issue occurs under Linux with post-install scripts.
and often involves files, particularly configuration files
and DLL's, that wind up overwriting each other
You are seriously behind the times. "DLL Hell" was eliminated almost a decade ago thanks to the use of Windows Installer, Windows File Protection, Side-by-Side Component Sharing,.NET, etc.
and are extremely unwieldy to uninstall.
They are uninstalled when the uninstall script is executed.
They're also amazingly bad about cleaning out the Registry debris
Windows Installer removes any registry keys that are installed by it. The application can still make a registry key that the Windows Installer doesn't know about. The same exact thing happens under Linux if the application writes to/etc, but the package manager doesn't know about the file.
and installation time configuration changes that can, and do, interfere with other software.
The same exact thing can and does happen under Linux. An rpm can change configuration files or a sysctl and mess the system up.
You can stop trolling now. You're not doing anything to help the Linux cause by spreading ignorant FUD, even if you think you are.
Linux has a single application which does all the installing / uninstalling a bit like a storeroom manager,
Windows has two frameworks that do this: Windows Installer and ClickOnce. Windows Installer has been in use since 1999, and most third-party installation package creators (like WISE or InstallShield) use this API. ClickOnce was created in 2004 to install user-specific.NET applications (i.e. applications installed only for the current user and not for the entire machine). ClickOnce functions similar to JNLP.
Of course, nothing is stopping anyone from using NSIS or Izpack to install something on Windows. However, Linux isn't immune to this either. On Linux, you can also:
Install software using an installer (like Izpack or a shar).
Install software with application-specific installers like CPAN, PEAR, the Firefox extension installer, JNLP, etc...
Build an application directly from source.
Install a different package manager.
Windows has an open door policy where people can put what they want where they want
Windows has permissions on both the file system and configuration data, and requires the appropriate permissions to install software.
whether it's fully working or not
Windows applications aren't the only software that has bugs.
has an unistall option or not
The Windows Installer is transactional, and creates a rollback script as it installs the software.
has the users permission or not.
Opening an installation package will cause the installer to prompt the user.
Not only that, there's nothing checking that they clear out their mess after
removal.
The Windows Installer does this (see above).
Technically, you could create a custom install action without an appropriate custom uninstall action, but you can do exactly the same thing on Linux (i.e. You can create post-install scripts that don't change back things that the post-install script changed).
When I start firefox, I expect to see a usable browser window as quickly as my computer can deliver it. Not a dialog asking if I want to update these extensions.
You can turn it off:
Options... --> Advanced --> Update --> Automatically check updates to: Installed Add-ons
I'd be better if there was a setting to make the extension update request appear in a pop-up (tray) notification (like what happens when the browser is already running).
then, after I click yes, will do the updates, then sit there doing nothing while demanding that I click "continue"
That ticks me off to no end as well. Unless the installation of one of the add-ons failed, you don't need to tell me about the installation that I just confirmed that I wanted to do. I don't know it there is a setting to turn this off.
The iPhone 3.0 software enables the 'Spring Surprise' tactile feedback:
Two steel bolts that, upon the activation of the keyboard, spring outward and pierce the user's hands and fingers.
Alright, an Apple/Monty Python crossed memes thread!
Apple iPhone 3.0: "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be snappy."
Slashdot Mirror
In Space No One Can Eat Ice Cream
In space no one can hear you scream for ice cream. We all do it, though.
I may write a book, and it may have some very non obvious and novel story lines, but the book isn't patentable.
There might be a problem with that statement.
"nutcase sitting in his basement with a homemade Faraday cage because the government is using mind control on him"
Omigosh, I need to use a whole Faraday cage now?! I thought the hat was enough.
There is still something that you apparently miss: Windows has vulnerabilities
There is still something that you apparently miss: Every Operating System since the dawn of time has vulnerabilities.
Humor me. Let's work backward in time, alright? Vista was released, in part, to correct or patch vulnerabilities in XP SP3. And, XP SP3 was released to patch vulnerabilities in XP SP2. XP SP2 was released to patch XP SP1. And so forth.
Having stated that my fresh install of XP SP2 was infected immediately after connecting to the web, you declare that XP SP2 was a safe operating system, and that stuff like that isn't possible. Or, at least impossible for a "properly configured" system.
That's right. One of the things I listed was exposed, and that's how they cracked you.
Then, why does MS waste their time trying to make their OS more secure, if it is so secure that SP2 couldn't be compromised, out of the box?
Why does OpenBSD waste their time trying to make their OS more secure, if it is so secure that 4.4 couldn't be compromised, out of the box?
Really, you're not making any points here - this is foolish.
No, you're just so blinded by zealotry that you won't accept the fact that maybe you did something wrong.
I know what I did with that machine,
Did you follow NIST's or SAN's advice for machine configuration?
I know the firewall was turned on,
Did you look at the exceptions?
I know that I had an antivirus installed.
You said that it flagged the attacks. Did the antivirus installation disable the firewall in favor of using its own buggy implementation?
I also know that I felt secure in the knowledge that crackers and script kiddies don't waste time scanning lame-ass dial up networks.
All networks are hostile.
All the same, the machine was hijacked in front of my eyes. You may believe it, you may dismiss it, but you can't win an argument in which you accuse me of "changing something".
Okay, fine, you didn't change anything. Was ICS enabled? What was in the exception list? Was file sharing turned on? These are obvious things to check.
Fresh, out of the box installation, hijacked. You can google for more accounts of similar experiences - or not, as you choose.
All of which have one of the issues that I previously listed wrong with them.
The Windows Firewall when properly configured deflects inbound attacks just fine. Any successful attack is due to improperly configuring the machine.
But whatever, you're trolling, so were done here.
Nope. Windows firewall runs by default on XP SP2, if you'll recall. I did NOT disable the firewall. 100% clean install, all default values, nothing changed.
You had to have changed something. Either you had filesharing enabled, you configured an exception rule, you configured ICS, or Avast disabled the firewall.
A properly configured Windows Firewall (even pre-SP2) doesn't have any issues rejecting inbound traffic.
And it's almost imposible(Newer seen it done) to install a Windows XP SP1 and then upgrade to SP2 before you get a virus
Turn on the firewall.
In my own personal experience, I've taken possession of a totally dicked up Windows box, formatted, installed Windows from CD, installed a few apps from CD (avast included) then connected to the internet for updates. Within ten minutes, the machine was infected with yet more malware.
I call bullshit. The only way that you could have accomplished this is to purposely disable the Windows Firewall and connect the machine directly to the internet.
That's just stupid, no matter which operating system you're using.
One thing you can be sure of is that a kid with these all problems sure plays a mean pinball.
No, it means that Linux is into bestiality or possibly necrophilia.
No, that's BSD.
Interesting examples you choose to use, and how you're trying to portray them as the norm rather than the exception.
It's what you've been doing the entire time.
People who use VIM or Emacs are power users, chances are they're gonna run them from the terminal regardless of where they appear on the menu.
That's speculation, and is completely irrelevant. The launchers are in the Accessories category, which is one big list. That doesn't help with finding the application any more than the way Windows does it.
The "Accessories" menu is for the oddball applications which don't fit into any other category,
The point that it's for "oddball" applications is irrelevant. The fact that the applications were categorized as "oddball" is the problem. The default categorization on Linux does not necessarily make it easier to find applications than on Windows.
which is always gonna be a lot smaller on Linux because all the regular stuff that does fit into a category is in that category.
That's pure speculation.
You're right in the fact that it's no more arbitrary than the "all programs", other than it's been filtered and listed alphabetically.
All Programs is also listed alphabetically.
but these things are part of getting used to the distro you use,
That's an apologist's argument. You don't have to convince me to use Linux; I've been using it since 1993.
Open Office Draw is a strange example and one I agree with you on. The rest of the Open Office suite appears under the Office menu, it's odd that one part of it does not.
That's the point; it's not easier, just different.
Most of the time Linux applications won't start at boot unless you tell them to, the exception being server daemons. Other applications do occasionally have stuff that do, like your Novell Evolution notifier.
The exact same thing can be said about Windows.
Of course there's a trade off again, that you can have it set to run at boot automatically or let the user do that step on the understanding that if they don't know about it, or know how that they will assume it's not working.
Ditto.
The "infinite number of places" a menu item can be in Linux fits neatly into a single /usr/share/applications/ which by my count is one place.
There are also files in /etc and in the user's home directory. Three places. That's one more place than the absolutely insane two places you were complaining about in Windows.
You're right in the fact that it's a back end location, the user only sees the menu.
Exactly like under Windows. See how this argument is completely pointless?
The point is that your view of Windows isn't based on actual facts. The fact that you're dredging up ten year old FUD and quoting it as gospel should maybe clue you in that you're acting on your emotions to an extent. I mean, do you see people in this day and age complaining that it takes Linux 20 minutes to copy a 4 meg file? No, that would silly, and people would point out the fallacy. So it shouldn't surprise you when you get called out for doing the same thing. I will never understand this type of slavish devotion towards a software platform. As far as I'm concerned, they all suck immensely.
Now, I'm going to go back messing with GNOME-Do in Ubuntu running in VirtualBox on Windows Vista. Have a wonderful day.
When a package is installed in Linux, the shortcut is put in it's category in the menu. If you install Firefox you know it will appear under something like "Internet / Browsers" or even just "Internet".
It also places applications like Emacs and Vim in "Accessories". That's just about as arbitrary a place as the Start Menu. Furthermore, between releases the categorization of an application can change. So after you get used to it being under "Editors", it suddenly changes to "Accessories".
In Windows it adds a Mozilla Firefox sub-menu with various Firefox, Firefox Safe Mode etc to the end of the list.
Yes, it groups everything related to the application in the same menu item. That's much better than dividing OpenOffice up between "Office" and "Graphics". "I want my office drawing application. Where is it? Oh, yeah, it's in the Graphics menu away from everything else related to the application."
If a user forgets it's a Mozilla application they're not looking for "Mozilla".
The just go to the top of the menu and select "Internet", or they recognize the icon, or they type "firefox" into the search box, or they type "internet" into the search box.
If you have a lot of applications installed you're looking through a long unordered list to find the shortcut.
It's sorted alphabetically, and contains a visible, easily accessible search box and a scrollbar. Under Ubuntu 9.04, the "Accessories" menu is of a similar size and has scroll pads. The thing it lacks is a clearly visible search. I don't see how the Ubuntu version is any better than the Windows version. It is not any more usable, and even lacks features that the Windows menu has.
Not to mention the fact that in Windows there are two places these shortcuts go, all users and current user,
Yeah, and on Linux there are an infinite number of places where a menu item can be because they're defined by configuration files that have the ability to include other files from arbitrary places in the filesystem. So what?
which is not very apparent on the front facing end,
As with Linux, the user never sees this. It's just a menu.
or programs which have no need to run at boot deciding to add themselves into the start folder.
Yeah, so what? Linux does exactly the same thing. I certainly didn't ask for Linux to start up "Evolution Alarm Notifier", but it's in my startup applications. I don't even use Evolution, so why is it in my startup applications?
Your arguments are specious at best.
If your Windows installer does clears the mess after a ... the developers should have had the courtesy to do.
Your information is outdated. If the installer creates the shortcut, it is deleted provided that you did not move the shortcut yourself.
Hell, Windows allows them to throw in links, shortcuts, toolbars anywhere they like at install time
First of all, this is no different than any other operating system that has a packager that runs as root. Secondly, Windows does not allow installation to some areas of the filesystem. Third, Windows also restricts installers from installing to some areas of the file system without explicit user permission.
The same applies to the "all programs" menu where stuff is added at the end of the list, often by the vendor, so you can easily have to look through 2 or 3 random ordered columns to find the link you're looking for.
This is no different than when an application is installed on Ubuntu and updates the KDE, Gnome, or Xfce menu.
In theory newly installed applications also list on the add / remove programs, which is sketchy and curiously has no way to "add" programs, only remove or reinstall what's already listed as installed.
This is based on outdated information.
I'd love to see a screen capture of a virus prompting the user for permission to install.
Viruses don't bother calling the installer and instead use shellcode exactly the same way that they've done on other operating systems starting with the Morris worm.
Microsoft's partners won't be happy, many of their business models rely on Windows being shit and constantly needing protection and cleaning. Sarcasm aside, the lack of this is another reason why Windows is plagued with malware.
This is based on completely accurate information. ;)
All systems do, but running the default user as admin bypasses all of that... by default.
This is based on outdated information.
UAC is Microsoft's attempt at fixing that and giving (kinda) sudo-ish functionality to Windows.
This is only one of the measures in place to fix this.
It was clunky in Vista, ... "enable stuff by default" mode because anything disabled can easily be seen wrongly as broken by the user.
That is not the path that Microsoft is taking with Windows 7.
A little education is the key here... The "Linux is a scary and hard to use" line weakens with every user who learns the basics of how their PC works.
Most computer users are not scared of Linux, because they do not know that it even exists.
The amount of uninstallable debris that builds up...cleaning up after such installers rather awkward.
That's a troll based on outdated information. Stop spreading false information.
And you've seriously waved a magic wand at, and this... adware and vaguely legal "monitoring your experience" spyware.
That completely ignored any information in my reply. You've also added a completely offtopic rant about spyware that ignores the fact that Linux software vendors do and have done this in the past.
Whether this is the fault of the developers ... clean up after themselves.
I agree. The point being that it is completely without merit to blame Microsoft for something developers do that is contrary to the documentation. It is as much without merit as it would be to blame RedHat for a poorly written rpm.
These sorts of mess can certainly happen under Linux, but the debris left behind tends to be much, much smaller.
This is anecdotal information that I disagree with.
And because the installers are better documented and more transparent, it's usually much simpler to clean up.
This is an opinion based on outdated information or ignorance. Creating a proper installer on Windows is trivial and well documented.
that list is extremely poorly managed
No it isn't. The only time an uninstall script doesn't work is when developers use custom actions. The same issue occurs under Linux with post-install scripts.
and often involves files, particularly configuration files and DLL's, that wind up overwriting each other
You are seriously behind the times. "DLL Hell" was eliminated almost a decade ago thanks to the use of Windows Installer, Windows File Protection, Side-by-Side Component Sharing, .NET, etc.
and are extremely unwieldy to uninstall.
They are uninstalled when the uninstall script is executed.
They're also amazingly bad about cleaning out the Registry debris
Windows Installer removes any registry keys that are installed by it. The application can still make a registry key that the Windows Installer doesn't know about. The same exact thing happens under Linux if the application writes to /etc, but the package manager doesn't know about the file.
and installation time configuration changes that can, and do, interfere with other software.
The same exact thing can and does happen under Linux. An rpm can change configuration files or a sysctl and mess the system up.
You can stop trolling now. You're not doing anything to help the Linux cause by spreading ignorant FUD, even if you think you are.
Linux has a single application which does all the installing / uninstalling a bit like a storeroom manager,
Windows has two frameworks that do this: Windows Installer and ClickOnce. Windows Installer has been in use since 1999, and most third-party installation package creators (like WISE or InstallShield) use this API. ClickOnce was created in 2004 to install user-specific .NET applications (i.e. applications installed only for the current user and not for the entire machine). ClickOnce functions similar to JNLP.
Of course, nothing is stopping anyone from using NSIS or Izpack to install something on Windows. However, Linux isn't immune to this either. On Linux, you can also:
Windows has an open door policy where people can put what they want where they want
Windows has permissions on both the file system and configuration data, and requires the appropriate permissions to install software.
whether it's fully working or not
Windows applications aren't the only software that has bugs.
has an unistall option or not
The Windows Installer is transactional, and creates a rollback script as it installs the software.
has the users permission or not.
Opening an installation package will cause the installer to prompt the user.
Not only that, there's nothing checking that they clear out their mess after removal.
The Windows Installer does this (see above).
Technically, you could create a custom install action without an appropriate custom uninstall action, but you can do exactly the same thing on Linux (i.e. You can create post-install scripts that don't change back things that the post-install script changed).
When I start firefox, I expect to see a usable browser window as quickly as my computer can deliver it. Not a dialog asking if I want to update these extensions.
You can turn it off: Options... --> Advanced --> Update --> Automatically check updates to: Installed Add-ons
I'd be better if there was a setting to make the extension update request appear in a pop-up (tray) notification (like what happens when the browser is already running).
then, after I click yes, will do the updates, then sit there doing nothing while demanding that I click "continue"
That ticks me off to no end as well. Unless the installation of one of the add-ons failed, you don't need to tell me about the installation that I just confirmed that I wanted to do. I don't know it there is a setting to turn this off.
What's going on with slashdot? If I click on a story link, like
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/05/29/2010202/Credit-Crunch-Squeezing-Data-Center-Space
I get a "connection reset by peer" error message.
But if I change the url to
http://slashdot.org/story/09/05/29/2010202/Credit-Crunch-Squeezing-Data-Center-Space
then everything works fine.
They ran out of data center space for the machines the subdomains were hosted on.
No, but look on the bright side: It almost runs Crysis!
ED is the standard text editor.
To turn it into a productive tool, you need to spend several hundred more dollars
Really? You got robbed, then. I paid nothing for Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, Paint.net, VLC, Pidgin, DVDStyler, etc.
Since when did Microsoft start shipping NVIDIA drivers with their Windows releases, anyways?
It depends on how new your card is. I have an 8600, and the drivers were part of Vista. There were even updates through Windows Update.
But, Remington Microscreen shaves as close as a blade or your money back. How can Occam compete with that?
The iPhone 3.0 software enables the 'Spring Surprise' tactile feedback: Two steel bolts that, upon the activation of the keyboard, spring outward and pierce the user's hands and fingers.
Alright, an Apple/Monty Python crossed memes thread!
Apple iPhone 3.0: "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be snappy."
The add can be turned off under the "View" menu.
This only turns off the ad for the current session. Once you restart, the ad will be back.
There's an app for that!