Oh, and Windows is FORCING me to upgrade to Vista, and thus upgrade my hardware? Well, I'm glad they didn't find out about that 1999 dell I refered to earlier.
You're right though, I'll go and installed the latest Evolution client on that copy of RH 6 I have lying around.
Vista doesn't run worth a darn on mediocre hardware released IN 2006!!
Huh, you should tell that to my 2004 computer, complete with GeForce 5700 FX card no less.
You "wouldn't trust it to run a Windows mail client"? Good. There are no good Windows mail clients!
Outlook, especially 2003 and higher are very good mail clients. Not to be confused with Outlook Express.
Speaking as someone who has migrated numerous, large, corporate clients away from Windows crapware, the costs of migration are trivial compared to the costs of trying to keep a Windows business network "running". In every instance, I've been able to demonstrate that the migration and training costs are less than 6 months of Windows "support". I have never had any corporate client refuse to migrate.
Care to name a few? Windows sales haven't been exactly lacking. I'm sure you didn't include failing hardware costs, because many that would be wrong. And of course I'm left to wonder how many "Windows" admins are really qualified. Did you perhaps investigate that route as well? I know you didn't... you wouldn't get business that way.
Windows is no longer suitable for business.
And yet large businesses continue to use and buy MS software. Interesting.
I'm currently migrating a BIG bank away from MS - they like the security, reliability, and reduced costs of FOSS. Their servers were already using FOSS - it's now desktop migration time. There have been no training or support problems.
Care to name the bank?
Certainly there must be some company that exultated how much they are now saving and running problem free by switching to Linux?
Game Over, Microsoft!
Right, because as we know, anecdote is evidence, and you couldn't POSSIBLY be full of shit?
Proof: people are indeed downgrading from Vista to XP.
So what? Some people hate change, and will kick and scream until everyone else is using the new version. The same happened when XP came out, people were "downgrading" to 2000.
That does not match your theory that XP is "good enough" so people don't upgrade because the fact is that people (and lots of them) ARE upgrading to Vista and then turning away.
Most people are getting Vista installed on new machines, not upgrading. Just how most people got XP. Again, this happened before. Hell, search/. if you don't believe me. At any rate, I hear people (especially Apple) saying this, but no one is backing it up with numbers.
On a personal note, I'm disappointed with Vista because it doesn't add enough value for me. I mean.. it takes them 5 years and then they price it insanely high and for what? A sidebar with useless "gadgets?" Aero? Throw on top of that poor compatibility and the host of other problems that I and others have experienced, and you have to ask yourself what you paid for. Of course, people will argue the value is "under the hood," but those people will have to get real. MS threw away everything that was cool from Longhorn and nothing remained for Vista. Arguably little remains to improve Vista over XP, and I would say that the cons of Vista negate any pros it has going for it.
I was going to respond to this, but then I saw your "threw away everything cool from Longhorn" remark, which isn't true. Many of the features made it, some have been "moved" to other projects. Some have been split and the pieces moved to different projects.
That's only comparing Vista to XP, an old operating system by this time. The competition from Apple and the linux community hasn't been stagnant either, so at t his point I would say that the cost of Vista certainly doesn't match the value, and while such good alternatives, I can't really recommend Vista to anyone. But again, if you're already using it and it works for you, excellent. Most people however will not find the value it would take to justify the costs of upgrading (which are higher than just the cost of Vista alone).
With Apple, you get to throw away ALL hardware and software investment you made. Wonderful. Linux isn't there, and you still end up throwing away much of your software investment. There was a time I really thought it was, and I moved back to Windows.
Finally, most people aren't going to upgrade to Vista. They'll get it when they buy a new computer.
Suprisingly, since Windows is well over 10 years old, much legacy software is NOT DOS based! Wine blows. Really. I've used it. It wouldn't trust it to run a Windows mail client let alone something my business depends on.
Additionally, you're talking about a big cost moving everything to a new environment, even if it works in the end. Vista moved almost nothing, unless you've never used the XP start menu. Even if you have, you can set it back. Its not as drastic as a change as KDE or Gnome would be. Less changes is better, some users can't cope if the icon isn't on their desktop.
Now you're suggesting that people are being forced to upgrade. I tried installing Ubuntu on a PC that was built in 1999 or so. It didn't go very well. The result? I put an older OS on the machine.
I know your argument sounds good, really. I used to think that too. But I point you to Japan's economy. If everyone is putting money in the bank and people aren't spending, there's nothing worthwhile to invest in.
This is what's going on in Japan now. Their economy has been tanking because their citizens save the majority of thier income. That's what stopped (or drastically slowed) them after the 80s.
Well now the dev community is being hit in the face (at least those of them that HAVEN'T been following best practices all along), which is why users are complaining about UAC.
As the other devs release the next version of thier software, these UAC issues should die out.
I beg to differ. It DOES run better than XP did on the same system, I find the new UI easier to use, and haven't had startup programs blocked and not runnable. At worse, I'm notified and its easy to tell Windows to allow the program to run.
Of course, when XP first came out, it drove me nuts, much like it seems Vista has done for you. So I switched to Mandriva in 2001 or so (my server had been RH for years). I ran it as my desktop (except for games) until about 2005, when the latest Mandriva was pissing me off to no end, and changing how my network was setup was taking more and more of my time. Also, linux had just as many odd problems as windows (sound dying randomly, KMail "losing" my mail, upgrades to software packages an absolute nightmare that not even Windows users deal with), that I switched back.
I'm happy again, as I'm not using my computer for things that interest me, and not having to spend hours figuring out odd Linux problems (in Windows, these things have become rare, for me) and if I need to change my network setup, its done and I'm back to work.
Not that you'll follow that path, but you never know.
Reading TFA, Linux is actually a better answer to most of the issues raised.
Really? Linux is better? Considering that you have to throw out all investment in the software you have which runs on Windows? You need to forget everything you learned about Windows, and re-learn for Linux? That's a better idea?
I doubt that. How many exploits have there been to Win2k3 compared to Win2k? The number dropped quite a bit. I think Vista will be harder to exploit as well.
As a side note, you can type cmd into the search box and hit enter, and it will open the command prompt. Ya.. much more difficult.
Allow/Deny?" is not a security model. Neither is UAC. It allows privilege escalation.
Right, because *nix OSes don't allow privledge escalation either. Do an experiment. Take your Vista machine and remove your account from the Administrators group. Notice how Allow / Deny becomes "Enter administrator password."
Then, logon to your Linux machine and run any UI tool for administering the system. Notice the same "Enter administrator password" prompt.
Have you ever had to make such a huge design change in your existing large software that you thought maybe it WOULD be easy to start over, at least for a large portion? Hell, I've had programs written by a team as small as five where I thought that would be the best choice.
Ahh, because if someone makes a parable, it must be true.
The fault in the logic though is that the shopkeeper may have done nothing at all with the money he used to fix the window, the may just horde it to himself.
In other words, the glass maker AND tailor AND mythical assistent are ALL unemployed. Notice that its not filed with other fallacies.
In this case, that "adolescent crap" is well deserved and hardly adolescent. It is the outpour of pent up rage from professional web developers everywhere.
Huh, and here I thought "outpouring pent up rage" would be considered very unprofessional.
Especially when you have to explain to your client why it took a day longer than you estimated because of IE.
If you're targeting IE (and there's no reason not to), I'd expect you'd learn how to do things the IE way, and then tweak to work in IE and FF. IE is the largest share of the market after all, and as a PROFESSIONAL I'd think you'd have learned all the quirks by now.
Get rid of the Trusted Site, Internet, Untrusted security model and just have Untrusted.
So even your company intranet should be untrusted (Restricted Sites), and not allowed to use ANY plugins or Javascript? Ya, great plan. Lets not forget how useless many other sites would be.
I once joked with a colleague that Internet Explorer has probably wiped billions off pounds off the world economy. I laughed, paused for a moment, and realised it's probably completely true. What could the world have done with all those countless hours hacking their CSS to support the trash that is Internet Explorer?
It's actually completely false. Your argument is similar to that used by those pushing "traffic safety" measures. Higher insurance rates / costs from accidents don't damage the economy, they actually contribute to it. You may not be happy paying $100 more to your insurance that you could put elsewhere, but its certainly not hurting the economy at all. If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.
I had a C128, and it had reliablity problems. I suspect it was overheating, but then again it would freeze for no reason a few minutes after being first turned on that day..
Well, anyone NOT knowledgeable doesn't know what TCP/IP is either, nor do they know how to press CTRL-P. Who cares what someone that doesn't know thinks?
That's making the assumption that the condition isn't life-threatening. Ask how long the appeals process *can* take..
A few weeks typically. At any rate, as soon as something becomes life-threatening, the hospital will choose to do the proceedure without waiting for the insurance company. Go ahead, look at the fincanials for hospitals, they are MILLIONS of dollars out there because of this (and deadbeats)....Which does nothing to bring back a dead patient...
Again, in emergant situtations, the hospital will go ahead and do the work.
And praytell, where does one go to ask to borrow 10k-100k that [because of the potential of death on the table] may never be paid back, other than a loan shark?
Who said borrow? First off, there is Medicare / Medicaid, which typically WILL pay for things private insurance won't. Second, you may have to sell your house to raise the money. I said "alternate funding" I didn't limit that to loans.
Considering the staffing situation at most hospitals, the number of "random" tests performed isn't as big as the insurance companies would like you to believe. Many times what they call "unnecessary diagnostics" was a doctor trying to make sure they had the right answer.
Who said I got my information from the insurance companies? I got that information from the hospital itself (indirectly). My wife worked for both sides of the battle; the hospital had its own health insurance company, which she worked for, and she also worked for pre-certification with one of the departments. She knows VERY well how things function on both sides (which is why she was good at getting approvals; even after initial denials).
I'm not saying the scammers aren't out there at work... they're just not at the levels that'd kill the insurance industry.
It's much more common than you seem to believe. The other side of the coin is because of non-payment from insurance companies (or un-insured people that come in for care), the hospital is out a lot of money.
Mainly because there's no way to prove that a Mars trip might not be as beneficial.
No need to prove anything conclusively at all; my point is there are NO advisors at all. At least if they had some they'd have a more informed opinion. I don't want people that can't spell potato deciding which research is worthy of more attention and which isn't, with NO input whatsoever from an expert in the field.
Individual states cannot secede. That was ultimately the point of the Civil War. The slavery issue was a smokescreen; the real issue was that the national government would not allow the states that formed the Confederacy to remove themselves from the Union.
Which of course violates the premise of our government. I think that was the first major sign we were in trouble (of course allowing slavery was also wrong). If a free people can choose to form a government to protect their rights, surely they are free to disolve it?
More broadly, the entire idea of state sovereignty (i.e. enumerated powers) has been emasculated. The federal government has the powers it says it has. In the good old days, they used to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify Federal intervention in matters Constitutionally delegated to the states; now, they rarely even bother.
I think that largely happened when the Sentate become elected instead of appointed by State legislatures. I think its time we reverse that, and we may see states start reigning in the federal goverment.
My wife works in this field as well. The first decision from insurance is not the final one; it can be appealed. Failing that, its possible to sue if your doctor (and second opinions) agree it was necessary.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't come into play; the procedure has typically already been done, and even if the claim is denied, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the surgery, just that you may have to find alternate funding. Of course the flip side of this is hospitals / offices performing random tests just to be able to bill for something as well. So I wouldn't put blame soley on the insurance companies.
At any rate, all of this is moot, since Congress doesn't have any advisors to tell them other research would be more benefical than a trip to Mars.
Perhaps you don't understand insurance companies very well. Health insurance companies employ actual real DOCTORS, which review YOUR doctor's notes, to determine the validity of the claim / procedure.
So, does Congress employ rocket scientists to help them determine their decision?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and Windows is FORCING me to upgrade to Vista, and thus upgrade my hardware? Well, I'm glad they didn't find out about that 1999 dell I refered to earlier.
You're right though, I'll go and installed the latest Evolution client on that copy of RH 6 I have lying around.
Vista doesn't run worth a darn on mediocre hardware released IN 2006!!
Huh, you should tell that to my 2004 computer, complete with GeForce 5700 FX card no less.
You "wouldn't trust it to run a Windows mail client"? Good. There are no good Windows mail clients!
Outlook, especially 2003 and higher are very good mail clients. Not to be confused with Outlook Express.
Speaking as someone who has migrated numerous, large, corporate clients away from Windows crapware, the costs of migration are trivial compared to the costs of trying to keep a Windows business network "running". In every instance, I've been able to demonstrate that the migration and training costs are less than 6 months of Windows "support". I have never had any corporate client refuse to migrate.
Care to name a few? Windows sales haven't been exactly lacking. I'm sure you didn't include failing hardware costs, because many that would be wrong. And of course I'm left to wonder how many "Windows" admins are really qualified. Did you perhaps investigate that route as well? I know you didn't... you wouldn't get business that way.
Windows is no longer suitable for business.
And yet large businesses continue to use and buy MS software. Interesting.
I'm currently migrating a BIG bank away from MS - they like the security, reliability, and reduced costs of FOSS. Their servers were already using FOSS - it's now desktop migration time. There have been no training or support problems.
Care to name the bank?
Certainly there must be some company that exultated how much they are now saving and running problem free by switching to Linux?
Game Over, Microsoft!
Right, because as we know, anecdote is evidence, and you couldn't POSSIBLY be full of shit?
Fine, how would you have fix the issue of not knowing when disk has been removed? Crash everything? No thanks.
Proof: people are indeed downgrading from Vista to XP.
/. if you don't believe me. At any rate, I hear people (especially Apple) saying this, but no one is backing it up with numbers.
So what? Some people hate change, and will kick and scream until everyone else is using the new version. The same happened when XP came out, people were "downgrading" to 2000.
That does not match your theory that XP is "good enough" so people don't upgrade because the fact is that people (and lots of them) ARE upgrading to Vista and then turning away.
Most people are getting Vista installed on new machines, not upgrading. Just how most people got XP. Again, this happened before. Hell, search
On a personal note, I'm disappointed with Vista because it doesn't add enough value for me. I mean.. it takes them 5 years and then they price it insanely high and for what? A sidebar with useless "gadgets?" Aero? Throw on top of that poor compatibility and the host of other problems that I and others have experienced, and you have to ask yourself what you paid for. Of course, people will argue the value is "under the hood," but those people will have to get real. MS threw away everything that was cool from Longhorn and nothing remained for Vista. Arguably little remains to improve Vista over XP, and I would say that the cons of Vista negate any pros it has going for it.
I was going to respond to this, but then I saw your "threw away everything cool from Longhorn" remark, which isn't true. Many of the features made it, some have been "moved" to other projects. Some have been split and the pieces moved to different projects.
That's only comparing Vista to XP, an old operating system by this time. The competition from Apple and the linux community hasn't been stagnant either, so at t his point I would say that the cost of Vista certainly doesn't match the value, and while such good alternatives, I can't really recommend Vista to anyone. But again, if you're already using it and it works for you, excellent. Most people however will not find the value it would take to justify the costs of upgrading (which are higher than just the cost of Vista alone).
With Apple, you get to throw away ALL hardware and software investment you made. Wonderful. Linux isn't there, and you still end up throwing away much of your software investment. There was a time I really thought it was, and I moved back to Windows.
Finally, most people aren't going to upgrade to Vista. They'll get it when they buy a new computer.
Suprisingly, since Windows is well over 10 years old, much legacy software is NOT DOS based! Wine blows. Really. I've used it. It wouldn't trust it to run a Windows mail client let alone something my business depends on.
Additionally, you're talking about a big cost moving everything to a new environment, even if it works in the end. Vista moved almost nothing, unless you've never used the XP start menu. Even if you have, you can set it back. Its not as drastic as a change as KDE or Gnome would be. Less changes is better, some users can't cope if the icon isn't on their desktop.
Now you're suggesting that people are being forced to upgrade. I tried installing Ubuntu on a PC that was built in 1999 or so. It didn't go very well. The result? I put an older OS on the machine.
I know your argument sounds good, really. I used to think that too. But I point you to Japan's economy. If everyone is putting money in the bank and people aren't spending, there's nothing worthwhile to invest in.
This is what's going on in Japan now. Their economy has been tanking because their citizens save the majority of thier income. That's what stopped (or drastically slowed) them after the 80s.
Well now the dev community is being hit in the face (at least those of them that HAVEN'T been following best practices all along), which is why users are complaining about UAC.
As the other devs release the next version of thier software, these UAC issues should die out.
I beg to differ. It DOES run better than XP did on the same system, I find the new UI easier to use, and haven't had startup programs blocked and not runnable. At worse, I'm notified and its easy to tell Windows to allow the program to run.
Of course, when XP first came out, it drove me nuts, much like it seems Vista has done for you. So I switched to Mandriva in 2001 or so (my server had been RH for years). I ran it as my desktop (except for games) until about 2005, when the latest Mandriva was pissing me off to no end, and changing how my network was setup was taking more and more of my time. Also, linux had just as many odd problems as windows (sound dying randomly, KMail "losing" my mail, upgrades to software packages an absolute nightmare that not even Windows users deal with), that I switched back.
I'm happy again, as I'm not using my computer for things that interest me, and not having to spend hours figuring out odd Linux problems (in Windows, these things have become rare, for me) and if I need to change my network setup, its done and I'm back to work.
Not that you'll follow that path, but you never know.
Good luck.
Reading TFA, Linux is actually a better answer to most of the issues raised.
Really? Linux is better? Considering that you have to throw out all investment in the software you have which runs on Windows? You need to forget everything you learned about Windows, and re-learn for Linux? That's a better idea?
Doubtful.
I doubt that. How many exploits have there been to Win2k3 compared to Win2k? The number dropped quite a bit. I think Vista will be harder to exploit as well.
As a side note, you can type cmd into the search box and hit enter, and it will open the command prompt. Ya.. much more difficult.
Allow/Deny?" is not a security model. Neither is UAC. It allows privilege escalation.
Right, because *nix OSes don't allow privledge escalation either. Do an experiment. Take your Vista machine and remove your account from the Administrators group. Notice how Allow / Deny becomes "Enter administrator password."
Then, logon to your Linux machine and run any UI tool for administering the system. Notice the same "Enter administrator password" prompt.
Have you ever had to make such a huge design change in your existing large software that you thought maybe it WOULD be easy to start over, at least for a large portion? Hell, I've had programs written by a team as small as five where I thought that would be the best choice.
Not everything can be fixed by a few meg patch.
Vista looks to me like it's mostly eye candy.
Right, because you can see security improvements in the UI.
Ahh, because if someone makes a parable, it must be true.
The fault in the logic though is that the shopkeeper may have done nothing at all with the money he used to fix the window, the may just horde it to himself.
In other words, the glass maker AND tailor AND mythical assistent are ALL unemployed. Notice that its not filed with other fallacies.
The money could be better spent elsewhere.
That's your opinion. It may not be spent at all.
In this case, that "adolescent crap" is well deserved and hardly adolescent. It is the outpour of pent up rage from professional web developers everywhere.
Huh, and here I thought "outpouring pent up rage" would be considered very unprofessional.
Especially when you have to explain to your client why it took a day longer than you estimated because of IE.
If you're targeting IE (and there's no reason not to), I'd expect you'd learn how to do things the IE way, and then tweak to work in IE and FF. IE is the largest share of the market after all, and as a PROFESSIONAL I'd think you'd have learned all the quirks by now.
Get rid of the Trusted Site, Internet, Untrusted security model and just have Untrusted.
So even your company intranet should be untrusted (Restricted Sites), and not allowed to use ANY plugins or Javascript? Ya, great plan. Lets not forget how useless many other sites would be.
I once joked with a colleague that Internet Explorer has probably wiped billions off pounds off the world economy. I laughed, paused for a moment, and realised it's probably completely true. What could the world have done with all those countless hours hacking their CSS to support the trash that is Internet Explorer?
It's actually completely false. Your argument is similar to that used by those pushing "traffic safety" measures. Higher insurance rates / costs from accidents don't damage the economy, they actually contribute to it. You may not be happy paying $100 more to your insurance that you could put elsewhere, but its certainly not hurting the economy at all. If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.
I had a C128, and it had reliablity problems. I suspect it was overheating, but then again it would freeze for no reason a few minutes after being first turned on that day..
Other studies have pretty conclusively shown that as poverty declines, so does violence.
Well, anyone NOT knowledgeable doesn't know what TCP/IP is either, nor do they know how to press CTRL-P. Who cares what someone that doesn't know thinks?
That's making the assumption that the condition isn't life-threatening. Ask how long the appeals process *can* take..
...Which does nothing to bring back a dead patient...
A few weeks typically. At any rate, as soon as something becomes life-threatening, the hospital will choose to do the proceedure without waiting for the insurance company. Go ahead, look at the fincanials for hospitals, they are MILLIONS of dollars out there because of this (and deadbeats).
Again, in emergant situtations, the hospital will go ahead and do the work.
And praytell, where does one go to ask to borrow 10k-100k that [because of the potential of death on the table] may never be paid back, other than a loan shark?
Who said borrow? First off, there is Medicare / Medicaid, which typically WILL pay for things private insurance won't. Second, you may have to sell your house to raise the money. I said "alternate funding" I didn't limit that to loans.
Considering the staffing situation at most hospitals, the number of "random" tests performed isn't as big as the insurance companies would like you to believe. Many times what they call "unnecessary diagnostics" was a doctor trying to make sure they had the right answer.
Who said I got my information from the insurance companies? I got that information from the hospital itself (indirectly). My wife worked for both sides of the battle; the hospital had its own health insurance company, which she worked for, and she also worked for pre-certification with one of the departments. She knows VERY well how things function on both sides (which is why she was good at getting approvals; even after initial denials).
I'm not saying the scammers aren't out there at work... they're just not at the levels that'd kill the insurance industry.
It's much more common than you seem to believe. The other side of the coin is because of non-payment from insurance companies (or un-insured people that come in for care), the hospital is out a lot of money.
Mainly because there's no way to prove that a Mars trip might not be as beneficial.
No need to prove anything conclusively at all; my point is there are NO advisors at all. At least if they had some they'd have a more informed opinion. I don't want people that can't spell potato deciding which research is worthy of more attention and which isn't, with NO input whatsoever from an expert in the field.
Individual states cannot secede. That was ultimately the point of the Civil War. The slavery issue was a smokescreen; the real issue was that the national government would not allow the states that formed the Confederacy to remove themselves from the Union.
Which of course violates the premise of our government. I think that was the first major sign we were in trouble (of course allowing slavery was also wrong). If a free people can choose to form a government to protect their rights, surely they are free to disolve it?
More broadly, the entire idea of state sovereignty (i.e. enumerated powers) has been emasculated. The federal government has the powers it says it has. In the good old days, they used to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify Federal intervention in matters Constitutionally delegated to the states; now, they rarely even bother.
I think that largely happened when the Sentate become elected instead of appointed by State legislatures. I think its time we reverse that, and we may see states start reigning in the federal goverment.
No, you don't. The DMCA prohibts bypassing copy protection for any reason.
My wife works in this field as well. The first decision from insurance is not the final one; it can be appealed. Failing that, its possible to sue if your doctor (and second opinions) agree it was necessary.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't come into play; the procedure has typically already been done, and even if the claim is denied, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the surgery, just that you may have to find alternate funding. Of course the flip side of this is hospitals / offices performing random tests just to be able to bill for something as well. So I wouldn't put blame soley on the insurance companies.
At any rate, all of this is moot, since Congress doesn't have any advisors to tell them other research would be more benefical than a trip to Mars.
Perhaps you don't understand insurance companies very well. Health insurance companies employ actual real DOCTORS, which review YOUR doctor's notes, to determine the validity of the claim / procedure.
So, does Congress employ rocket scientists to help them determine their decision?