By argue, I mean actually have a valid point. Those 20% don't have any valid points that any reasonable person would agree with. You can argue nonsense all you want, that doesn't mean much though.
Although it's encrypted, it does nothing to authenticate that the host your connected to is the one it's supposed to be, by contrast SSL uses certificates and SSH uses host keys.
I guess you haven't use the newest RDC then...
It also discloses information about the OS running and all the usable authentication domains *BEFORE* you have authenticated! It's been years since unix machines displayed the OS version in their remote banners (telnet did, SSH never has by default).
Proof?
Also remote desktop takes over your local workspace, you end up with multiple isolated gui instances running instead of your single local gui with multiple administrative tools running inside it.
That's a personal preference. Also, outside of remote desktop (for more trusted locates) you can install the Admin Pak and use the MMC snap-ins to configure servers just if you were configuring it locally.
You also can't pipe data over a remote desktop session the same way you can with ssh, eg:
Um, who cares? Like I'm gonna use a server to encode mp3s.. Can you present a case where you would absolutely HAVE to be able to pipe the data over RDC like you could in SSH?
Oh please. If you work remotely, you can use Remote Desktop. Its encrypted. Ssh isn't the end all be all of server products, and not having it hardly qualifies as "crippling" an OS.
No. If you look at the facts and what Bush has done objectively, I think you would have to come out against Bush. Huge assult on civil liberties, getting us draw into two wars we don't need, damaging world opinion of the US.. the list is longer. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that any of those things are good for the US.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Those things happen with much less frequency that if you just let people come and go as they please. Sick might happen a few days a year, whereas "any hours you want" would be an everyday occurance.
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Who is limiting this to just office jobs? I didn't see that anywhere. AT any rate, YOU just can't say that even most jobs would be fine if people did as they pleased. You have no evidence to back that up.
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
That's not what the OP said. Flex hours are nothing new, and they almost certainly have limits. I had flex hours at a few places, but at the very latest they expected you in by 9 or 9:30.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
So would people living closer to their jobs, or allowing them to work at home if possible. Again, I'm not sure you really would see those benefits either. For example, the PA turnpikes blue route and NE extension are ALWAYS busy, no matter what time of day or night. Ditto for the roads actually in the city.
Vista works, and in my opinion very well. So your line of thinking is out. Besides, the OP implied that if he could pirate it he would, so clearly he thinks it would work for him, but he just doesn't want to pay.
At any rate, I'm not interested in what the retarded peanut gallary here thinks, I want to hear it from the ACs mouth.
Lets narrow this down. I'm using WSUS 3.0, as are others reporting that the update DOES NOT autoinstall despite settings. What version are you using? You're aware that there's an option that will automatically approve updates to installed versions of software.. so if you're users installed the last version and you have this option set, it WILL send the update out. But that's how its supposed to work.
For the record: I don't give any credience to ACs here, which is why I don't respond to them and they all start with a -1 penalty.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Check your settings again. And don't go by the installed / NA percentage, unless you drill down into the the report. At first glance I thought it DID just go through, but when I checked the report, every single computer was reporting NA, not installed.
Are they still calling those Unlimited plans though? That seems to be the crux of the matter here. Also, given that this settlement was just reached, I can understand they haven't update the site yet.
Ya, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. Our company has a WSUS server that I manage, and the update came in as Not Approved. So either he approved it, or set the server to auto-approve anything, which would be his doing as well. Or maybe he doesn't realize that its not an Installed % that it shows, its an Installed / NOT APPLICABLE % that the column indicates. In other words, I have 39% in that column, because the update doesn't apply at all to 39% of computers in our company. No computers to which the update applies have it installed.
Although it must be nice to live in a world where the numbers we've discussed don't qualify as "high cost," a lot of people would disagree with you.
Ya, I can see how $7 is a lot to a college student, and $100 is a lot to anyone with a full time job. Oh wait its not.
I concede that I pulled $3xx from the Super-Duper Mega Ultra Office Edition, but it just happened to be the first thing a search turned up. OTOH, I wasn't including the cost of Windows in that, which, if we're talking about the cost of "using Word," should be in there.
The cost of Windows is typically included in the cost of the computer. If buying the computer already covers Windows, so you don't need to include it again. Of course colleges ALSO offer discounted versions of Windows as well, so again, not a huge expense for college students, and it could even be included in student loans.
I don't know what you're talking about here, but I've never seen the "works properly" version of Office. I can't get the damn thing to get out of my way and let me work. It's all in what you're used to, I guess
You know, lets you get things formatted the way you want. The one that doesn't crash on a constant basis. OOo doesn't include an email progam, so I'll pick on Kmail, that steaming pile that would for no reason corrupt mailbox indexes making it seem as though all your mail disappeared. But i guess its no problem to just delete the index from time to time, because that should be part of normal use anyway.
Oh, like Office '97? Nope. '95? Uh, no. It's not even compatible with earlier versions of their own product! OOo, on the other hand, is compatible with damn near whatever format you can think to throw at it.
Funny how nobody I've met has had these problems, and I haven't either. OOo opens pretty much its own format, and certainly doesn't open Word files in anywhere close to properly.
Oh, that's right. Because so many people get Office support from Microsoft. When was the last time you called them?
Well I haven't had to call them about Office, because I haven't had any issues with it. I did call them for support with MS Money though, twice, and they did resolve both issues. Compared to the idiot FOSS people who either don't read your message and respond with RTFM!! (which, by the way, where IS the manual.. oh it doesn't exist half the time) or remain silent, because I guess nobody can explain what's going wrong.
And just because you got suckered into paying through the nose for a half-assed version of what should by 2007 be commodity software, don't take your bitterness out on the rest of us.
Bitter? Sure. Not because I feel cheated, I wouldn't pay for something I didn't find value in. The bitter part comes from the FOSS failing me. I ran my own Linux server for 10 years, Linux on the desktop for three. It was ok in college, when I wanted to tinker anyway, but when I just want it to work, and to be able to make changes quickly and easily, it failed. RPM hell, poor documentation and only text file configurations, people saying I'm an idiot for not buying some five year old dot matrix printer, because why should I expect anything to work on Linux I guess, wierd problems and crashes to which there were NO answers.. ya, after trying Linux for quite a while, I gladly went back to MS.
True, it doesn't have to be exact, but it has to be very close. The two examples you sited never went to court and the parties settled. So legally there is still doubt as to whether or not eithr of those are valid cases.
Think of any of the MS product names in fact, "Office", "Word", or "Excel". All of these are common English words, much more so than the phrase Grand Theft Auto.
I don't agree with your conclusion. The offical name of those products is Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word, etc. Even the shortcuts installed all follow that same pattern, probably because they'd not be able to register a trademark simply as "Word." If you can find a trademark registration for Word that refers to MS Word, you'd have a point. I don't think you will though.
Ya, come in whenever you want. Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If a serious problem arises, and your manager isn't there, it'll have to wait too. Nevermind that things may grind to a halt.
the money made from Technobrega is in the large outdoors concerts they put on, which is a very Brazlian past-time which I think would work so well in western countries
Yes, I do know what FUD means. Blatent lying about a point to scare people from a product. Such has a high cost.
My argument is that its not nearly as expensive as the OP was claiming just to use Word. What I didn't mention is that college students can get even cheaper versions through their schools typically. I believe someone else pointed out they can get office 2007 for $7 through their college.
I'd rather pay $124, get something that will work properly, is compatabile with what most others use, and I can actually get support for. Just because something is free doesn't mean its worthwhile. OOo isn't worthwhile. Yes, I actually have used it. If people think MS Office is bad, OOo is simply awful.
And that tells you about mice. Then you run into issues like saccharin being tested against mice, finding that it causes cancer, and there is apparently no correlation with cancer in humans, meaning that it appears to cause cancer in mice, but not humans. There are a number of things that cause cancer in one species but not another. The best you can do is "link" something with cancer in humans, but not prove it with human trials (at least not without violating ethical standards).
Its a safe bet that it tells you about humans too. And we can test monkeys as well, which are much closer to humans than mice. You assume there's no link between tobaco or saccharin and cancer in humans, yet our rates of intestinal and lung cancer are rising dramatically (all forms of cancer, actually).
Nevermind that I personally know two people that developed lung cancer at the same time. My friends parents, both pack a day smokers. One is dead now of lung cancer. Given that I (and her kids) all grew up breathing the same air in the same town, but none of us smoke, I find it odd that both of them get lung cancer, and we didn't. I'm sure there are many, many others that have similar stories. So many in fact that doctors WILL tell you smoking has a very high risk of causing lung cancer.
I think the situation is similar here; we KNOW lead causes brain damage, we KNOW that much of that damage leads to violent behavior, it stands to reason that if everyone was breathing lead there would be some brain damage which lead to violent behavior. We can even look back at violence levels 200 years ago, when they used lead plates and cups.
If you paid attention to the tobacco trials, you'd have noticed that there was the scientific standard of "proof" that was used by the tobacco people to indicate that there still is no proof that smoking causes cancer. This was only a few years ago with expert witnesses in court. However, when people used "linked to the point all reasonable people will believe it to be a cause" as the definition of proof, they lost their case. For the scientific definition of "proof" it is still not proven that cigarettes cause cancer. Of course, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe that they do not cause cancer. So, in discussions like this, both people can directly contradict each other and both be right, depending of the use of the word "proof".
Ya, I'm sure they did find doctors that said there was no link. You can pay some people, and they'll say whatever you want them to. The majority of scietiests and doctors agree that the link between the two is too strong to ignore.
Slashdot Mirror
By argue, I mean actually have a valid point. Those 20% don't have any valid points that any reasonable person would agree with. You can argue nonsense all you want, that doesn't mean much though.
Although it's encrypted, it does nothing to authenticate that the host your connected to is the one it's supposed to be, by contrast SSL uses certificates and SSH uses host keys.
I guess you haven't use the newest RDC then...
It also discloses information about the OS running and all the usable authentication domains *BEFORE* you have authenticated! It's been years since unix machines displayed the OS version in their remote banners (telnet did, SSH never has by default).
Proof?
Also remote desktop takes over your local workspace, you end up with multiple isolated gui instances running instead of your single local gui with multiple administrative tools running inside it.
That's a personal preference. Also, outside of remote desktop (for more trusted locates) you can install the Admin Pak and use the MMC snap-ins to configure servers just if you were configuring it locally.
You also can't pipe data over a remote desktop session the same way you can with ssh, eg:
Um, who cares? Like I'm gonna use a server to encode mp3s.. Can you present a case where you would absolutely HAVE to be able to pipe the data over RDC like you could in SSH?
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you asking how you can setup a system that has no net connection without having SSH available?
Oh please. If you work remotely, you can use Remote Desktop. Its encrypted. Ssh isn't the end all be all of server products, and not having it hardly qualifies as "crippling" an OS.
No. If you look at the facts and what Bush has done objectively, I think you would have to come out against Bush. Huge assult on civil liberties, getting us draw into two wars we don't need, damaging world opinion of the US.. the list is longer. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that any of those things are good for the US.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Those things happen with much less frequency that if you just let people come and go as they please. Sick might happen a few days a year, whereas "any hours you want" would be an everyday occurance.
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Who is limiting this to just office jobs? I didn't see that anywhere. AT any rate, YOU just can't say that even most jobs would be fine if people did as they pleased. You have no evidence to back that up.
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
That's not what the OP said. Flex hours are nothing new, and they almost certainly have limits. I had flex hours at a few places, but at the very latest they expected you in by 9 or 9:30.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
So would people living closer to their jobs, or allowing them to work at home if possible. Again, I'm not sure you really would see those benefits either. For example, the PA turnpikes blue route and NE extension are ALWAYS busy, no matter what time of day or night. Ditto for the roads actually in the city.
ACs = Anonymous Cowards.
Your experience is odd indeed then, because other's like me have the exact opposite experience.
Vista works, and in my opinion very well. So your line of thinking is out. Besides, the OP implied that if he could pirate it he would, so clearly he thinks it would work for him, but he just doesn't want to pay.
At any rate, I'm not interested in what the retarded peanut gallary here thinks, I want to hear it from the ACs mouth.
Right, because you have to steal it to disable the activation stuff.
/. will people justify stealing something because it annoys them.
If you really are that annoyed by it, don't use it. Only on
Lets narrow this down. I'm using WSUS 3.0, as are others reporting that the update DOES NOT autoinstall despite settings. What version are you using? You're aware that there's an option that will automatically approve updates to installed versions of software.. so if you're users installed the last version and you have this option set, it WILL send the update out. But that's how its supposed to work.
For the record: I don't give any credience to ACs here, which is why I don't respond to them and they all start with a -1 penalty.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Check your settings again. And don't go by the installed / NA percentage, unless you drill down into the the report. At first glance I thought it DID just go through, but when I checked the report, every single computer was reporting NA, not installed.
No, you don't need this to use OneNOte or Outlook, just not true. If you don't have the desktop search installed, it will use its own search.
Are they still calling those Unlimited plans though? That seems to be the crux of the matter here. Also, given that this settlement was just reached, I can understand they haven't update the site yet.
Ya, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. Our company has a WSUS server that I manage, and the update came in as Not Approved. So either he approved it, or set the server to auto-approve anything, which would be his doing as well. Or maybe he doesn't realize that its not an Installed % that it shows, its an Installed / NOT APPLICABLE % that the column indicates. In other words, I have 39% in that column, because the update doesn't apply at all to 39% of computers in our company. No computers to which the update applies have it installed.
As MSIE and WMP have shown this is a battle which third parties cannot win (at least in the consumer space).
Ya you're right; that's why FF isn't gaining any ground, and third party video players don't come pre-installed on dells and others!
No, the real issue is that you shouldn't be forced to get an update you didn't consent to.
Although it must be nice to live in a world where the numbers we've discussed don't qualify as "high cost," a lot of people would disagree with you.
Ya, I can see how $7 is a lot to a college student, and $100 is a lot to anyone with a full time job. Oh wait its not.
I concede that I pulled $3xx from the Super-Duper Mega Ultra Office Edition, but it just happened to be the first thing a search turned up. OTOH, I wasn't including the cost of Windows in that, which, if we're talking about the cost of "using Word," should be in there.
The cost of Windows is typically included in the cost of the computer. If buying the computer already covers Windows, so you don't need to include it again. Of course colleges ALSO offer discounted versions of Windows as well, so again, not a huge expense for college students, and it could even be included in student loans.
I don't know what you're talking about here, but I've never seen the "works properly" version of Office. I can't get the damn thing to get out of my way and let me work. It's all in what you're used to, I guess
You know, lets you get things formatted the way you want. The one that doesn't crash on a constant basis. OOo doesn't include an email progam, so I'll pick on Kmail, that steaming pile that would for no reason corrupt mailbox indexes making it seem as though all your mail disappeared. But i guess its no problem to just delete the index from time to time, because that should be part of normal use anyway.
Oh, like Office '97? Nope. '95? Uh, no. It's not even compatible with earlier versions of their own product! OOo, on the other hand, is compatible with damn near whatever format you can think to throw at it.
Funny how nobody I've met has had these problems, and I haven't either. OOo opens pretty much its own format, and certainly doesn't open Word files in anywhere close to properly.
Oh, that's right. Because so many people get Office support from Microsoft. When was the last time you called them?
Well I haven't had to call them about Office, because I haven't had any issues with it. I did call them for support with MS Money though, twice, and they did resolve both issues. Compared to the idiot FOSS people who either don't read your message and respond with RTFM!! (which, by the way, where IS the manual.. oh it doesn't exist half the time) or remain silent, because I guess nobody can explain what's going wrong.
And just because you got suckered into paying through the nose for a half-assed version of what should by 2007 be commodity software, don't take your bitterness out on the rest of us.
Bitter? Sure. Not because I feel cheated, I wouldn't pay for something I didn't find value in. The bitter part comes from the FOSS failing me. I ran my own Linux server for 10 years, Linux on the desktop for three. It was ok in college, when I wanted to tinker anyway, but when I just want it to work, and to be able to make changes quickly and easily, it failed. RPM hell, poor documentation and only text file configurations, people saying I'm an idiot for not buying some five year old dot matrix printer, because why should I expect anything to work on Linux I guess, wierd problems and crashes to which there were NO answers.. ya, after trying Linux for quite a while, I gladly went back to MS.
True, it doesn't have to be exact, but it has to be very close. The two examples you sited never went to court and the parties settled. So legally there is still doubt as to whether or not eithr of those are valid cases.
Think of any of the MS product names in fact, "Office", "Word", or "Excel". All of these are common English words, much more so than the phrase Grand Theft Auto.
I don't agree with your conclusion. The offical name of those products is Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word, etc. Even the shortcuts installed all follow that same pattern, probably because they'd not be able to register a trademark simply as "Word." If you can find a trademark registration for Word that refers to MS Word, you'd have a point. I don't think you will though.
Who said it is limited to kids? I see plenty of adults that are incapable of critical thinking.
Ya, come in whenever you want. Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If a serious problem arises, and your manager isn't there, it'll have to wait too. Nevermind that things may grind to a halt.
the money made from Technobrega is in the large outdoors concerts they put on, which is a very Brazlian past-time which I think would work so well in western countries
It would.. they should call it a Rave.
Yes, I do know what FUD means. Blatent lying about a point to scare people from a product. Such has a high cost.
My argument is that its not nearly as expensive as the OP was claiming just to use Word. What I didn't mention is that college students can get even cheaper versions through their schools typically. I believe someone else pointed out they can get office 2007 for $7 through their college.
I'd rather pay $124, get something that will work properly, is compatabile with what most others use, and I can actually get support for. Just because something is free doesn't mean its worthwhile. OOo isn't worthwhile. Yes, I actually have used it. If people think MS Office is bad, OOo is simply awful.
Ya it will. Home premium (the one I linked to) lets you play DVDs out of the box.
What home user cares about running an http, sql, dns, smpt, pop3 or imap server? Wow you're out of touch.
And that tells you about mice. Then you run into issues like saccharin being tested against mice, finding that it causes cancer, and there is apparently no correlation with cancer in humans, meaning that it appears to cause cancer in mice, but not humans. There are a number of things that cause cancer in one species but not another. The best you can do is "link" something with cancer in humans, but not prove it with human trials (at least not without violating ethical standards).
Its a safe bet that it tells you about humans too. And we can test monkeys as well, which are much closer to humans than mice. You assume there's no link between tobaco or saccharin and cancer in humans, yet our rates of intestinal and lung cancer are rising dramatically (all forms of cancer, actually).
Nevermind that I personally know two people that developed lung cancer at the same time. My friends parents, both pack a day smokers. One is dead now of lung cancer. Given that I (and her kids) all grew up breathing the same air in the same town, but none of us smoke, I find it odd that both of them get lung cancer, and we didn't. I'm sure there are many, many others that have similar stories. So many in fact that doctors WILL tell you smoking has a very high risk of causing lung cancer.
I think the situation is similar here; we KNOW lead causes brain damage, we KNOW that much of that damage leads to violent behavior, it stands to reason that if everyone was breathing lead there would be some brain damage which lead to violent behavior. We can even look back at violence levels 200 years ago, when they used lead plates and cups.
If you paid attention to the tobacco trials, you'd have noticed that there was the scientific standard of "proof" that was used by the tobacco people to indicate that there still is no proof that smoking causes cancer. This was only a few years ago with expert witnesses in court. However, when people used "linked to the point all reasonable people will believe it to be a cause" as the definition of proof, they lost their case. For the scientific definition of "proof" it is still not proven that cigarettes cause cancer. Of course, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe that they do not cause cancer. So, in discussions like this, both people can directly contradict each other and both be right, depending of the use of the word "proof".
Ya, I'm sure they did find doctors that said there was no link. You can pay some people, and they'll say whatever you want them to. The majority of scietiests and doctors agree that the link between the two is too strong to ignore.
I'm sorry, much cheaper? $20 difference isn't all that major difference.