Yes, they can switch to subscription-only. Photoshop alone has enough inertia that they'll get quite a few customers. Yes, the backlash will be great. Yes, it very well may spur competition (and I very much hope it does.)
Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?
What they need to "invent" is a messaging *platform* that does it all for you (i.e. collects the message data from different providers on a server and streams it together where it can be read by any number of compatible clients)
The problem is that the chat services want you using their network, through their client. They will block attempts to use another client. Why? Well, if you use another client, who can be sure you're viewing their advertising? This is why Skype, for example, is so resistant to reverse engineering.
What you're looking for is called Jabber; it already exists. The problem is that the chat networks don't want to play ball.
Congratulations. You're fired, before you get around to quitting. Seriously. As an employee, your role is to do the job required with the resources provided. If you cannot do so, or choose not to do so, you have no place in the workforce.
I disagree. Good software developers are in no way in a bind for work. What you're saying is that you only hire / retain those developers who will work under stupid conditions, i.e. mediocre to bad ones. When you make software development a top-down, just do exactly what I say and don't ask questions affair, you're going to drain all the creativity from your organization within a few months.
Demanding that employees use IE6, particularly if it is restricted to internal networks and is necessary to run particular software, is certainly reasonable
I disagree here too. IE 6 is now over 11 years old. If your organization places so little emphasis on IT that they have essentially frozen their architecture to a system that is more than a decade old, good developers won't want to work for you. Of course, that's probably fine for you since you don't respect them anyway. Just don't expect to be competitive in any real way.
Sure, automate the detection, but the enforcement, IMHO, must be manual, i.e., a ticket must be issued in person by an officer of the law. Furthermore, that cop should only be able to charge you with one instance of each law broken, i.e. one speeding charge, one reckless charge, etc. I think that would strike a decent balance.
Of course, this won't actually happen since people are unwilling to pay reasonable taxes and police departments are forced to provide their own revenue somehow.
I think the idea with forking everything was that they could rely on the forked programs working correctly inside MATE, instead of attempting to force newer versions of those programs from Gnome 3 to work inside an older desktop environment. Also, it (theoretically) lets you run MATE and Gnome 3 on the same computer without conflicts.
"If it works for me then have to work for everyone"... It is this way of thinking that makes the desktop linux the problem it is today.
Nowhere have I indicated this. Your claim was the following: "The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken." One working instance is a rebuttal of that claim (notwithstanding the fact that I have used many different distros on a wide variety of hardware). Furthermore, I know for a fact that the default Ubuntu install works fine with few changes. It may not be what you personally would like, and it may not have the latest software, but that's the trade-off they make for stability.
My desktop - today - is reasonably stable but I had to spend weeks researching to get it. Now put a normal user (the average Joe) having to do the same thing, and you will understand why only 5% of desktops use Linux.
I installed Ubuntu on my very much tech-phobic uncle's computer, dual-booted to his existing Windows installation. I have not had to fix anything on the Ubuntu side in over two years. If your next claim is that it's only that way because I installed it, I would ask whether your theoretical user installed Windows from scratch on their system. My thinking would be no. If they can install Windows, they're not an average user, and with current install processes for modern Linux distributions, they could certainly install Linux.
If you're going to argue about an installed Linux vs. a preinstalled Windows system, complete with drivers, you're arguing an apples-to-oranges comparison. Find a desktop system with preinstalled Linux (they do exist, despite Microsoft's stranglehold on the OEM market). My guess is that such a system would be far more stable than an equivalent Windows system.
I'm starting to think some of you guys are astroturfing here, but whatever, I'm open to debate.
Very much no. I don't remember the last time I came across non-kernel software that required a reboot immediately to work. Obviously, new drivers and whatnot will not work until you reboot, but the old versions will remain in memory and in-use until you do if they can't be used immediately.
Heck, I think it doesn't even tell you in aggregate ("installing the selected updates will require a reboot") until after it's done.
I'm not sure of this but the last time I remember using Ubuntu, I believe it did tell you on the update list prior to installation. I could be wrong.
you just have to stop the Windows Update service
That's kind of a sledgehammer-to-kill-an-ant approach. It's indicative of what I perceived as a larger problem; I often found that Windows was an adversary with things like this, where you had to work around it to get it to do what you want. Linux typically works with you.
Who really installs X from source? I mean, Gentoo users, but they're used to it and it's handled by a central package and dependency management system, so it's very unlikely that the build will break. Everybody else (the vast majority) uses binary packages.
or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies)
Libraries that get into the standard Debian / Ubuntu repos have been tested and retested. They're not "alpha". If you choose to install an alpha / beta / untested library, you get what you requested, which is potentially unstable code. This is not any different from other architectures like Windows or OS X.
The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.
I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
Ubuntu was probably downloading new kernels. Kernel development proceeds at a fairly fast pace, but a lot of times it's not strictly necessary to update them. I haven't used Ubuntu in a while but if it's like it was when I was using it, another advantage is that you're never *forced* to reboot after a set amount of time as you are by default in Windows. (Yes, I know this can be configured away with registry editing and whatnot, but it's not the default or even easy.)
...for you. Which is fine. I love it and use it every day.
Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence
There's an argument to made that this has happened in the Windows world a few times, but I digress. Gnome fucked up badly with Gnome 3. We get that. A lot of us still hold a grudge against them for that. That sort of update is in the minority. Most (as in 99.9%) updates I install work without any sort of configuration changes needed, and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux).
I'm not trying to sell you, I'm just pointing out that what you've heard doesn't mesh with my experience.
As part of an Ofcom directive to ensure that the UK doesn’t run out of numbers, PAYG numbers are recycled. In this instance, it appears that the premium text service attached to the number remained when the number was transferred to [the customer]. When PAYG numbers are recycled, they are attached to new SIMs so no personal data is transferred.
We have placed a block on [the customer's] account to stop any further texts and we have credited her account to cover the charges incurred.
This was an isolated human error and no personal data was shared. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Shitty nonetheless, but they did fix it once they realized what was going on.
The Universal Life Church allows anyone to become "ordained" via the internet in many US States (and probably elsewhere as well). This allows them to marry people. Perhaps Scotland had more stringent requirements of their church leaders in this regard previously?
Ergo a charging infrastructure within a metropolitan area should be fine. If you're on I-80 in the middle of Wyoming, use petroleum distillates.
Why not get rid of the gas stations entirely and just have these charge ports in parking lots and driveways? I can't imagine they take as much space as, say, an underground gas tank. Stick a credit card reader on them for payment, and you're golden.
(Yes, I know this won't happen overnight, but I think this is a more realistic vision.)
I was just about to go to Memory Alpha to see if the Vulcans used the Prime Directive (or something like it) prior to the Federation's existence, as Star Trek: First Contact would seem to suggest, but then I remembered that that might have been taking this a bit far.
*steals back the geek card, and the condom for good measure*
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying the following:
Yes, they can switch to subscription-only. Photoshop alone has enough inertia that they'll get quite a few customers.
Yes, the backlash will be great.
Yes, it very well may spur competition (and I very much hope it does.)
Also,
Adobe is simply following suite.
I see what you did there.
Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?
Yes.
What they need to "invent" is a messaging *platform* that does it all for you (i.e. collects the message data from different providers on a server and streams it together where it can be read by any number of compatible clients)
The problem is that the chat services want you using their network, through their client. They will block attempts to use another client. Why? Well, if you use another client, who can be sure you're viewing their advertising? This is why Skype, for example, is so resistant to reverse engineering.
What you're looking for is called Jabber; it already exists. The problem is that the chat networks don't want to play ball.
Sounds like an excellent opportunity for a class action lawsuit.
One bad instance is a statement that the entire group is bad? You live in a very strange universe.
That's a hell of a claim. Care to cite examples?
Congratulations. You're fired, before you get around to quitting. Seriously. As an employee, your role is to do the job required with the resources provided. If you cannot do so, or choose not to do so, you have no place in the workforce.
I disagree. Good software developers are in no way in a bind for work. What you're saying is that you only hire / retain those developers who will work under stupid conditions, i.e. mediocre to bad ones. When you make software development a top-down, just do exactly what I say and don't ask questions affair, you're going to drain all the creativity from your organization within a few months.
Demanding that employees use IE6, particularly if it is restricted to internal networks and is necessary to run particular software, is certainly reasonable
I disagree here too. IE 6 is now over 11 years old. If your organization places so little emphasis on IT that they have essentially frozen their architecture to a system that is more than a decade old, good developers won't want to work for you. Of course, that's probably fine for you since you don't respect them anyway. Just don't expect to be competitive in any real way.
Yeah, but in that parallel universe, Zuckerberg wouldn't be a job creator and thus we shouldn't listen to him. /republican_strawman
Sure, automate the detection, but the enforcement, IMHO, must be manual, i.e., a ticket must be issued in person by an officer of the law. Furthermore, that cop should only be able to charge you with one instance of each law broken, i.e. one speeding charge, one reckless charge, etc. I think that would strike a decent balance.
Of course, this won't actually happen since people are unwilling to pay reasonable taxes and police departments are forced to provide their own revenue somehow.
There's no such thing as Unity. I have retconned it from my universe. LALALALALA
I think the idea with forking everything was that they could rely on the forked programs working correctly inside MATE, instead of attempting to force newer versions of those programs from Gnome 3 to work inside an older desktop environment. Also, it (theoretically) lets you run MATE and Gnome 3 on the same computer without conflicts.
"If it works for me then have to work for everyone"... It is this way of thinking that makes the desktop linux the problem it is today.
Nowhere have I indicated this. Your claim was the following: "The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken." One working instance is a rebuttal of that claim (notwithstanding the fact that I have used many different distros on a wide variety of hardware). Furthermore, I know for a fact that the default Ubuntu install works fine with few changes. It may not be what you personally would like, and it may not have the latest software, but that's the trade-off they make for stability.
My desktop - today - is reasonably stable but I had to spend weeks researching to get it. Now put a normal user (the average Joe) having to do the same thing, and you will understand why only 5% of desktops use Linux.
I installed Ubuntu on my very much tech-phobic uncle's computer, dual-booted to his existing Windows installation. I have not had to fix anything on the Ubuntu side in over two years. If your next claim is that it's only that way because I installed it, I would ask whether your theoretical user installed Windows from scratch on their system. My thinking would be no. If they can install Windows, they're not an average user, and with current install processes for modern Linux distributions, they could certainly install Linux.
If you're going to argue about an installed Linux vs. a preinstalled Windows system, complete with drivers, you're arguing an apples-to-oranges comparison. Find a desktop system with preinstalled Linux (they do exist, despite Microsoft's stranglehold on the OEM market). My guess is that such a system would be far more stable than an equivalent Windows system.
I'm starting to think some of you guys are astroturfing here, but whatever, I'm open to debate.
Is it likely to go haywire?
Very much no. I don't remember the last time I came across non-kernel software that required a reboot immediately to work. Obviously, new drivers and whatnot will not work until you reboot, but the old versions will remain in memory and in-use until you do if they can't be used immediately.
Heck, I think it doesn't even tell you in aggregate ("installing the selected updates will require a reboot") until after it's done.
I'm not sure of this but the last time I remember using Ubuntu, I believe it did tell you on the update list prior to installation. I could be wrong.
you just have to stop the Windows Update service
That's kind of a sledgehammer-to-kill-an-ant approach. It's indicative of what I perceived as a larger problem; I often found that Windows was an adversary with things like this, where you had to work around it to get it to do what you want. Linux typically works with you.
How come something like ksplice hasn't gone mainstream to solve that last problem?
A bunch of legalities centering around Red Hat's control of the platform. Essentially, Ksplice isn't really free.
Try to install a new X server from source
Who really installs X from source? I mean, Gentoo users, but they're used to it and it's handled by a central package and dependency management system, so it's very unlikely that the build will break. Everybody else (the vast majority) uses binary packages.
or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies)
Libraries that get into the standard Debian / Ubuntu repos have been tested and retested. They're not "alpha". If you choose to install an alpha / beta / untested library, you get what you requested, which is potentially unstable code. This is not any different from other architectures like Windows or OS X.
The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.
I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
Ubuntu was probably downloading new kernels. Kernel development proceeds at a fairly fast pace, but a lot of times it's not strictly necessary to update them. I haven't used Ubuntu in a while but if it's like it was when I was using it, another advantage is that you're never *forced* to reboot after a set amount of time as you are by default in Windows. (Yes, I know this can be configured away with registry editing and whatnot, but it's not the default or even easy.)
As desktop, Linux still sucks
...for you. Which is fine. I love it and use it every day.
Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence
There's an argument to made that this has happened in the Windows world a few times, but I digress. Gnome fucked up badly with Gnome 3. We get that. A lot of us still hold a grudge against them for that. That sort of update is in the minority. Most (as in 99.9%) updates I install work without any sort of configuration changes needed, and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux).
I'm not trying to sell you, I'm just pointing out that what you've heard doesn't mesh with my experience.
Hacker News might be good for you. They're in general a little more intelligent and a little less crazy.
Hopefully either your post or mine, further down, will be modded up.
FYI this was on a prepaid account.
As part of an Ofcom directive to ensure that the UK doesn’t run out of numbers, PAYG numbers are recycled. In this instance, it appears that the premium text service attached to the number remained when the number was transferred to [the customer]. When PAYG numbers are recycled, they are attached to new SIMs so no personal data is transferred.
We have placed a block on [the customer's] account to stop any further texts and we have credited her account to cover the charges incurred.
This was an isolated human error and no personal data was shared. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Shitty nonetheless, but they did fix it once they realized what was going on.
Slashdot has become a little bit schizophrenic recently. Yes, we have.
The Universal Life Church allows anyone to become "ordained" via the internet in many US States (and probably elsewhere as well). This allows them to marry people. Perhaps Scotland had more stringent requirements of their church leaders in this regard previously?
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Ergo a charging infrastructure within a metropolitan area should be fine. If you're on I-80 in the middle of Wyoming, use petroleum distillates.
Why not get rid of the gas stations entirely and just have these charge ports in parking lots and driveways? I can't imagine they take as much space as, say, an underground gas tank. Stick a credit card reader on them for payment, and you're golden.
(Yes, I know this won't happen overnight, but I think this is a more realistic vision.)
I was just about to go to Memory Alpha to see if the Vulcans used the Prime Directive (or something like it) prior to the Federation's existence, as Star Trek: First Contact would seem to suggest, but then I remembered that that might have been taking this a bit far.
*steals back the geek card, and the condom for good measure*