So, upgrading X (which is pretty rare, usually a distro thing) disrupts Xwindows users Xsessions. It, however does not:
interrupt service to users on foreign X servers
interrupt processes delegated to background (relatively easy to do)
interrupt services provided by the unix (usually where X windows might be running) machine itself
restart the machine (which, in this thread is really the bottom line anyway).
Also, having to restart X is simply that, restarting X... it doesn't require everything else in the system to restart, just programs running within the server being restarted. Also, the OS (*nix) is architected in such a way that if some other X (graphics) application is upgraded, and needs to be restarted, it is the only application needing a restart, the entire graphics system around it (them) is unaffected (e.g., install a new version of OpenOffice, Gimp, whatever, the only thing that gets restarted is that application....). Time and time again in Windows I experience the frustration of upgrading some minor software only to get the dreaded reboot (mmjb comes to mind). What the heck?
So, you only point out what I've asked about -- you haven't explained why it's architected that way. I submit it doesn't have to be architected that way.
AVG and McAfee certainly don't [require unecessary reboots].
McAfee may not, but I long since jettisoned McAfee (are we/am I getting offtopic now?) because McAfee would ALWAYS fire up IE for updates, help, other stuff, no matter what my default browser was defined as. Drove me up the wall.... Don't know if they still do that, but I haven't really had the appetite to go back and try them again. Wrote them a letter, got a polite reply, but no commitment to remedying the problem.
I found it unbelievably ironic McAfee would not only use IE, but use IE overriding the default choice of browser considering: all of the security issues surrouding IE, AND that McAfee ostensibly is a company producing tools ostensibly to ensure security.
I would add that I don't see any of the updates typically doing graphics drivers updates (I have zero games installed on my computers, other than the crap that comes bundled with XP).
I'm not stupid about how systems are architected, just befuddled XP seems to have more reboot-specific stuff tossed at it.... I'm not kidding, a REQUIRED reboot for updates is almost an everyday occurence for me. I still think it's sloppy architecture (third party included).
a very small percentage of the updates requesting reboots in my XP systems are kernel updates. consider:
virus checker updates.... why would that require a reboot? Is Norton (or others) really doing something at the kernel level? I'd be surprised.
Music Maker Juke Box (one of my worst offenders)... why would their update require a reboot?
HP software update -- as far as I can tell these are just generic updates to the shit HP puts on my machine to try to sell stuff.... Prolly should turn their updates off anyway, but I've been under threat by them to not honor warranty if I don't do their updates.
Internet Explorer (which I never intentionally use)... why would that require a reboot? Kernel stuff? I thought part of the whole DOJ thing deemed integration of IE into the OS unecessary and illegal... Is it still integrated?
... (I could go on.... )
I suspect much of this is old habits dying hard -- application developers too lazy or too un-informed (stupid?) to write installation/update packages correctly not requiring reboots if they're unecessary. The easy "surefire" thing to do is just require a reboot.
Else, there sure is a heck of a lot of kernel update stuff going on in XP world where it probably shouldn't.
For example, if you upgrade a graphics driver today, you typically have to reboot the system. One example of the 'graphics just works' mantra is one of LDDM's goals of allowing installation of graphics drivers without needing to restart the system.
This brings a question to mind -- does anyone know exactly why Windows still requires reboots for these kinds of things? This makes my life positively MISERABLE.
A typical experience for me... I have all of my machines set up dual boot, all with some distro of linux, and either XP Home Edition, or XP Pro. I do most of (but not all) my work on the linux side, but when I do boot over to XP inevitably it's more than just one reboot, it's almost always at least 2, and many times it's 3! (not 3 factorial, just 3 exclamation). Typically this is a result of something in my XP environment updating itself, be it Windows itself, virus protection updates, or just the vendors download of updates. Invariably a download occurs (after granting permission), and then the update, and then the dreaded popup dialog box with some such message, "For the updates to take effect you must restart your computer. Restart now?"
And some of those dialog boxes offer no clickable option other than "OK" which means reboot and you have to jump through an extra cognitive hoop and remember to click the "X" in the corner of the dialog window (to defer the reboot).
On the other side... I don't remember the last time I've had to reboot my linux for any kind of updates, and I do get updates in linux on a pretty regular basis (as many as in Windows). What gives? I don't think the architecture for XP is so arcane it can't support recognizing and using updates without a reboot. Does anyone have solid commentary on this? (Not that my life's going to get any better around this anytime soon -- but it'd be nice to know if there's some bonified (sp?) reason for this step-into-the-twentieth-century XP behavior.)
...,Speak for yourself. Some of us are here (in the OSS world) because of Freedom, first and foremost, utility and technical superiority secondarily, and price lastly. That is to say, even if OSS cost twice as much and did half as much as non-Free software, I'd still use it. And I do, on a regular basis, purchase both Free and non-Free software for Linux and other open source platforms. I also develop it, and contribute back when possible....
and, from the parent post (mine):
Not speaking for the "community" I did tell that company I thought there may be more of a paying public out there in the linux world (but I really don't know).
Here's what I've noticed, and some recommendations therein....
There are a lot of fly-by-night on-line vendors.... while there is no surefire way to pick them out, here are some of the red flags I've found:
company lists prices way below the rest of the competition (this falls into the category "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is...")
company is based in New York, especially City (as in, NYC).... (and this is only a red flag -- I've dealt with numerous NYC on-lines that were great to do business with but on the other hand the ones I've had the worst experiences with were ALL in NYC)
company gets 5-star rating, but only has a couple of reviews (this is really just an indicator of not enough data....)
company gets 4 or 5-star rating out of 5.... upon closer examination the reviews CONSISTENTLY are either all five starsorall one star.
high ratings in reviews consistently sound of same "voice" of author -- usually a tell tale sign they're being written by shills, usually people running the company...
site does not provide e-mail notification after sale is transacted (by now, you're in too deep anyway, but it's at least a sign to start doing some aggressive investigation).
I've had a couple of near disastrous experiences and those more than anything put me in "due diligence" mode. Since then I've found that by doing reasonable research I always get good results.
Bottom line recommendations... when you find a vendor that has done good by you... stick with them, you're likely to continue to get good results and they'll reward you for your loyalty (sometimes)... Pick well known reputable go-betweens.... they carry a big stick and set high standards for their partners -- amazon is one that comes to mind -- you're not going to find the best dollar prices through amazon, but I guarantee you amazon will followup and ensure all goes smoothly, from finalization of the transaction, to shipping and receiving the purchase on time and in good condition and reasonable return policies.
Just curious, but will Microsoft open up their standards so when I am out and about in my linux car they will communicate appropriately and not crash? (I'd say I'm pretty confident my car isn't going to crash, but get really sweaty palms when I imagine Windows cars sharing the road with me...)
I started out impulsive. Over time I learned more and more, found more
resources, found more ways to compare and for me ultimately shopping on-line
has become anything BUT impulsive.
There are too many things to consider to allow impulsive buying to
dominate:
cost (compared to others, but not the ultimate deciding factor)
reliability of product (brand names vs brand names)
reliability of vendor (what are the ratings?, how many ratings?)
genuine need (vs impulse... I've found the readily available research
tools salve the impulsive beast in addition to providing useful purchasing
information)
I suspect the frustration for vendors is akin to the neurosis around
"closing the deal", much like a car dealer: "Ken!, That's a Great name....!
What do I gotta do to get you to drive off the lot in this car today?" But,
that's just not the way it works, or should work for informed buyers. And
vendors who get that, win.
Like the article points out, I've many times shelved an item in a
shopping cart to come back to it later after more research and a
self-confidence in my final decision to buy (Circuit City, et. al., take
note: don't cut me off on some arbitrary limit of shopping cart items... it
hurts your chances (actually cost you one sale) of the final sale).
Additionally, I've found the on-line info has made me a less impulsive
Brick and Mortar shopper. There are some items I refuse (still) to purchase
on-line, but that doesn't stop me from using the internet to find out as
much as I can about a product before going to the store. And, I've found
myself now seeing an interesting item in a Brick and Mortar, and making note
of the product name/manufacture and waiting until I've researched it on the
internet before buying.
I think in some ways multiple factors are in force. One, shoppers just
plain old want to be more informed about their purchase (I know, not ALL
shoppers, but more and more). Two, vendors have done little to earn trust
(ever try purchasing a tv lately? I couldn't believe the definitions I got
from sales people when trying to explain to me: hdtv vs edtv; hdtv 720 vs
1080; hdtv i vs p; sacd vs cd; et. al.). So customers now
armed with research capabilities hedge their bets and verify info from
multiple sources before entering CC information.
Slashdot makes money. Not as much as they might like, but... well, I have the same issue. They're here. I'm here. That is not some proof that God Loves Slashdot, but it is a nice reminder that services that serve are, well, useful enough to pay their own way.
I hope so, but I don't know so. Maybe you know something I don't. Sometimes services are provided in the hope and belief that, though they start out losing money, they are good enough and valuable enough, and yes, maybe even get enough God Love, they will prevail. In that light some eventually reassess, and go away because they just can't afford to provide the service anymore, and others decide to charge so they can continue to offer the service... hoping the "served" agree the service is valuable enough to pay for to continue to receive. I just don't know where various forums stack up in this continuum.
I HOPE slashdot is profitable and continues to offer "this" for free, but I still consider it a valuable enough service in my world I'd pay some fee to sustain that service.
Wow, your reply is even out of line for a slashdotter! So, you're just graduating from college, and got three job offers. This apparently means:
you've got the world by the brassies
you've got three job offers
you've got three job offers...
Hmmmm, come to think of it that's about all that means.
Sorry to hear you only got three offers, that pales in comparison to the number of offers I had (not bragging, just stating), and pales pretty much in comparison to others in my graduating class. But, because of your three offers you seem to think you know what makes a resume, I call bullhockey... (I don't even have to look at this guy's resume to know you're off base and out of line....)
And, you might consider for a moment the fact you got and the reason you got three (wow!) job offers has a lot more to do with the fact the market is more willing to recruit and hire newbies (don't care how good you are, don't care how good you think you are, you're a newbie) because among other things, they cost less, they don't expect you (or even want) to hang around for too long, and they don't have to give you benefits. You're myriad offers probably have less to do with your self-anointed position in the technical world and more to do with market conditions.
I don't mean to lauch on you, but come on, it's a shitty world out there without we the tech community being shitty to each other.
I can empathize with your stance you wouldn't want to provide profit (e.g., for slashdot) when you (and the community) are the providers of the content. But, in my opinion (and I don't know the economics of the posted article's site, nor do I know slashdot's), the fee requested or charged seems modest and I'm guessing it barely covers the cost of providing the systems, the bandwidth, etc. to support the forum. Again, I may be wrong about that, but I don't see this akin to gouging and submarining the user population.
On the other hand, were they (or slashdot) to ask something more like $20 A MONTH, I'd question their motive (as I question Microsoft's), and would probably step back and take a look as to whether I still considered posting on that forum at that price a "deal" I'm willing to take.
Again, market forces. Yes, we in many ways create and sustain communities like slashdot, but I know from experience putting something like this platform together, maintaining it, and sustaining ain't easy, and it ain't free. So, I'm willing to cut slashdot a little slackdot (even though it wasn't slashdot the original post points to -- just wanted to use the slackdot pun -- even though it was a bad one..)
I, for one (and hopefully not the only), would be more than willing to
pay a fee for something I find useful... Just because it started out free
isn't a guarantee it stays free.
And, juxtaposed with other things in my life.... $13/mo for tivo
subscription (and don't flame me about mythtv.... time invested is worth
money, too), $600 insurance/year to drive my car, $30/mo for ISP access,
$30/mo for satellite TV.... I only marvel so many things have been so free
for so long. So, in context with other things I pay for, I'd happily pay
$20/yr for something like the right to do this on slashdot. Not saying it
should happen, but sometimes things just gotta be paid for!
I may not WANT to pay for yet another "thingy", but it's a system of
choice, and if the sum total of things I want and their costs exceeds my
budget, I selectively cull thingies until equilibrium is re-established.
It's the way the market works.
And, for the record, I sometimes fear the OSS/(and linux) community hurts
their cause by their sometimes overly militant won't pay for
anything mantra. I once asked a commercial vendor of a really good
product if they'd consider vending a linux version.... they responded they
were too small of a shop and really couldn't afford to create a version for
a community that didn't want to pay for their product. Not speaking for the
"community" I did tell that company I thought there may be more of a paying
public out there in the linux world (but I really don't know).
~
Regex! As processors get faster, memory gets cheaper.... I wouldn't be surprised to see more better, faster, etc. implementations of regex that allow doing what full blown databases do today. Of course that's in a read/only context, but I've implemented full blown "database" applications centered around the regex. And some will point out regex doesn't deal with integrity and data management issues, I would point out many databases are implemented in overkill mode where data integrity and management are handled sufficiently and nicely with underlying OS mechanisms and the database engine itself becomes uneccessary (sometimes evens adds overhead).
Personally, I think so many things are "database" implemented because some glossy brochure somewhere convinced a room full of PHB's they needed a database solution.
Again, let me re-iterate, I wouldn't suggest this replaces and/or solves database issues, and becomes the new direction of database technology, but the increased processor speeds DOES allow for implementations relying solely on "crufty" technologies (e.g., regex, be it perl, awk, python, whatever) instead of databases costing tens of thousands (and more) dollars.
Who said HDTV was going to be too complicated?!? And I was afraid it was going to be a hard sell to convince my Mom what the right technology, model, resolution, etc. would be for her transition into the world of HD TV.... Now that I've RTFA, and read as many posts as possible I see this is going to be a really easy task. To save myself a little time, hope y'all don't mind, I've just e-mailed her the link to this story on/.. I'll let her figure it out.
Dude (or dudette? Guess I shouldn't assume...) We all have our days and posts to be snippy. LOL... I appreciate the followup though.
I find your narrative extremely interesting when you looked back in hindsight... it is, I think, a pretty universal theme when looking at any ripples in the fabric of the technological universe when Microsoft is nearby... They really do come in with a seemingly "We're here to help" mantra, only to bastardize, pillage, corrupt, and as you so nicely put, castrate technology in ways difficult to battle (ever deal with simple TCP/IP apps (sockets) that just wouldn't work right because of Microsoft's "win-sock"?).
And that was the main point of my original post... It's a shame, Microsoft has probably one of the largest brain trusts in the world, but there's an ironic oxymoronic twist to the term "trust" when looking at how Microsoft has chosen to apply that intellect. I know quite a few people there and stay on good terms with my friends there. And when I worked at Microsoft, I'd have to put it way at the top of my professional career experiences. It was a great environment to work in! Lots of fun, lots of stimulation.
But as long as the top at Microsoft includes people of Ballmer/Gates/Allchin ilk, the Microsoft culture will continue to be extremely hostile (and I think counterproductive) to the technical community and its progress therein at large. Sigh.
Tant pis pour nous! (Too bad for us!)
(and, thanks again for the followup.... you're on my list of friends.)
..., formerly was a for-pay addin to NT, a free download called Services For Unix.
The download is free, but I found it a nightmare to install and get running... it had numerous side-effects (unexpected ones), and I never really got it to work right.
And that was only for my XP Pro machine... SFU requires Pro, so for my XP Home (I don't see why all of the XP machines in a household should have to be Pro) machine the free download would first require a $100 (or more?) upgrade....
As for this being some "offering" from Microsoft (it isn't), the literature from Microsoft around this product pretty much couches SFU as a migratory temp-solution, with beaucoups des docs to describe how to migrate and convert apps on the "unix" side to the Windows side. So, rather than being a tool, I see it as a bait and switch. Just my opinion.
Also, Microsoft didn't release a POSIX userland, but other people got working at the code, and the essential GNU toolchain was ported to NT very early on.
This was actually why I quit shortly after Microsoft hired me. The public spin from Microsoft was very much, "Look, we're doing unix!", but behind closed doors the story was completely different. I escalated this all the way to a guy named Larry Kroger who at the time reported to Gates... I was upset, and asked Mr. Kroger about MS' intent with the POSIX subsystem. He pretty much echoed Margaret's stance. I asked, "What do I tell people who ask for support on this subsystem?".... "Tell them we don't support it."... "What do I tell people who ask what MS' future plans are for the POSIX subsystem?".... "Tell them we have none."
Before I left there some tried to convince me to stay on the basis that third parties would step in and flesh out the rest of the POSIX "universe". I made a decision to leave... pretty much based on what I perceived as a gross deception to the technical community and for their own gain...
So you tell only a little slice of the story, designed to make Microsoft look as bad as possible. Holding a grudge for some untold reason??
First, a post on/. doesn't really lend itself to a "thick" slice (this post will hardly be read because of its length!), but as for making MS look as bad as possible, a thicker slice only makes MS look worse. I don't really have to "design" my slice to make MS look bad, they bear that standard well on their own.
Personal grudge? Maybe, but I don't think so. I don't tell lies about Microsoft, but I find their attitude and practices abhorant (sp?), and certain courts later found their behaviors illegal (more than once). Probably closer to a professional grudge.... try as I might I've never quite been able to shake loose the daily cruft I have to wash off by having to deal with the world MS has created (family, friends, work... all in constant need of some technical attention.... ).
I still maintain friendships with MS people. My college roommate works there. I still have lunch with friends there on campus. So, I don't think personal grudge describes it very well.
Well, I worked for Microsoft, specifically on the original Beta Support team of sixteen.... and we were sternly warned not to refer to NT as standing for New Technology because it did NOT stand for that. They never did tell us what it DID stand for.... Would I be surprised that others at Microsoft DID think it stood for New Technology? No. Would they be wrong? Yes.
And, for my more serious post.... Microsoft has "reached out" before.
Seemingly not many remember their big PR campaign when they first released NT
circa 1992. One of the big claims, one of the big selling points of their
"new technology" (not what NT stands for, btw) was NT's POSIX compliance....
Microsoft purportedly was then about to "join" the open architecture
community. They even convinced me to go work for them. But, it turned out
they didn't do complete POSIX (only implemented the API, not the User
Utilities), and only did the POSIX at all to get government contracts (I
know this, I was at an internal presentation where "Margaret" prefaced the
presentation with the comments, "We are only doing POSIX as a checkbox, so
we can get government contracts..." (I am not making this up.))
..., Its (sic) almost irrelevent (sic) how good you you think you are, if you can't run Windows unprivleged (sic) you don't understand it....,
You're absolutely right (almost)! It isn't almost irrelevant how good I think I am, it's actually completely irrelevant how good I think I am. Hence my reliance on others to evaluate and pay me. I will on the other hand make the final determination whether or not I think they've valued me highly enough.
As to whether or not I'm running as administrator for no good reason, we may have differing opinions about what good reasons are. As for my track record and whether you think it matters, that's fine (what is it with the attacks today?, how about some civil discussions?)... But, who would you rather ride in a car with, a driver with a spotless record who won't wear a seat belt (no accidents, no tickets, years of driving experience), or someone who wears his seat belt but has mutiple serious injury accidents on his resume? (Hint: consider your inference that if I login regularly and unecessarily as an admin user I somehow don't understand Windows.) (Another Hint: the quality of anything you get will be related to the quality of the standards you choose to define that anything.)
[from my post...] And I pretty much always have myself configured as an admin type user... not because I have to all the time (I do lots of work not needing that level of access) [...] [Your ellipsis... and elimination of context...]
[from YOUR post...] THen whatever it is you're getting, you're being grossly overpaid. [your ad hominem]
Well, I guess it's fortunate you're not deciding how much I get paid. I'll let (and have) my record speak for itself with my employers.
As for any relative commentary, with context..., I only stated I run as admin in Windows because it's more convenient for me, not because I don't know how to do it otherwise. I KNOW how Windows is constructed, I "get" the architecture. I could run non-admin, but it's very inconvenient for the amount of admin type stuff I end having to do. (This analogously on a unix system is NOT inconvenient.) And, running as an admin user, I have NEVER been infected by ANY virus EVER, EVER, EVER!
The only time I HAVE been infected with a Windows virus was on one of my machines at work where I DON'T have a priveleged account.... but the virus still managed to infect my machine.
The problem isn't with Microsoft, it's with application developers...
First off, the problem is shared among Microsoft and its myriad developers of third party software. Microsoft has one of the most obfuscated platforms in the biz... and developers sometimes ignore how apps should be developed, sometimes don't know, and sometimes just plain don't have the resources to keep pace with the moving MS target of where and how apps need to be developed. Contrast this with the unix world where config files and tmp directories, and home directories and how they're laid out are pretty similar to what they were twenty years ago.
And, if you claim the problem is with application developers (for Windows) you sort of imply the world of unix application developers are of better pedigree since the litany of headaches in the admin vs non-admin demarcation is virtually non-existent in the unix world. I'm sure they appreciate the compliment.
..., you must never casually run Windows with Administrator privileges.
It's because so many people are used to doing this by default, and so many third party apps demand Admin privileges, that Windows security is a nightmare....,
I find the problem to be the insidious architecture of XP specifically the lack of clear demarcation between a priveleged user and an admin. I consult in both unix and Windows worlds for a living, so I'm on a Windows box a lot! (way more than I like) And I pretty much always have myself configured as an admin type user... not because I have to all the time (I do lots of work not needing that level of access) but more because of the unpredictability of what isn't going to work in some strange way when I'm using XP as an un-priveleged user. It sucks, but I've found it to be the most expedient way, and I'm always nervous about it. I DO configure others as non-priveleged, but it's amazing how often I get called to help with some problem caused by their lack of access (even though the problem SHOULDN'T exist).
On the other hand, I NEVER (as in don't remember the last time I logged in as) log in as root on unix machines, and don't even put myself in a root or bin group. I do use sudo when I need it both for the protection of not inadvertantly mucking something up and for the nice logging artifacts (makes it easy to go back and find out where *I* mucked something up if *I* did). And, I don't give my users any exceptional access rights... AND, I (comparatively speaking) virtually never get support or help calls from those users. Everything pretty much works the way it's supposed to in a unix world -- the unix community is pretty savvy about what the various directory structures are for, what levels of access they provide, and how to work within that paradigm.
My experience leads me to conclude MS is a long way from really solving the admin/general user problems -- it's SO entrenched in their philosophy (remember, Windows really started out and was developed for PC's -- remember what the "P" stands for? -- it should be no surprise there aren't any bright lines drawn between super and regular users.)
I guess the unusual nature of what I encountered was 2 firewalls running on EACH machine, i.e., the braindead MS XP firewall, and the MacAffee firewall (not much less braindead).....
Arrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh! So, I guess I see my chances of EVER just
buying a phone slipping even further away. Sigh.
Press, press, press, press, press, press, press..... Send..... Shoot!
Was just trying to call home, and created a playlist, no wait!, took an
upskirt (illegal in WA) and sent it to Mom, no wait!, ordered pizza from
Amazon!
Slashdot Mirror
You make my point for me... thanks.
So, upgrading X (which is pretty rare, usually a distro thing) disrupts Xwindows users Xsessions. It, however does not:
Also, having to restart X is simply that, restarting X... it doesn't require everything else in the system to restart, just programs running within the server being restarted. Also, the OS (*nix) is architected in such a way that if some other X (graphics) application is upgraded, and needs to be restarted, it is the only application needing a restart, the entire graphics system around it (them) is unaffected (e.g., install a new version of OpenOffice, Gimp, whatever, the only thing that gets restarted is that application....). Time and time again in Windows I experience the frustration of upgrading some minor software only to get the dreaded reboot (mmjb comes to mind). What the heck?
So, you only point out what I've asked about -- you haven't explained why it's architected that way. I submit it doesn't have to be architected that way.
McAfee may not, but I long since jettisoned McAfee (are we/am I getting offtopic now?) because McAfee would ALWAYS fire up IE for updates, help, other stuff, no matter what my default browser was defined as. Drove me up the wall.... Don't know if they still do that, but I haven't really had the appetite to go back and try them again. Wrote them a letter, got a polite reply, but no commitment to remedying the problem.
I found it unbelievably ironic McAfee would not only use IE, but use IE overriding the default choice of browser considering: all of the security issues surrouding IE, AND that McAfee ostensibly is a company producing tools ostensibly to ensure security.
Okay, first read my other response.
I would add that I don't see any of the updates typically doing graphics drivers updates (I have zero games installed on my computers, other than the crap that comes bundled with XP).
I'm not stupid about how systems are architected, just befuddled XP seems to have more reboot-specific stuff tossed at it.... I'm not kidding, a REQUIRED reboot for updates is almost an everyday occurence for me. I still think it's sloppy architecture (third party included).
a very small percentage of the updates requesting reboots in my XP systems are kernel updates. consider:
I suspect much of this is old habits dying hard -- application developers too lazy or too un-informed (stupid?) to write installation/update packages correctly not requiring reboots if they're unecessary. The easy "surefire" thing to do is just require a reboot.
Else, there sure is a heck of a lot of kernel update stuff going on in XP world where it probably shouldn't.
This brings a question to mind -- does anyone know exactly why Windows still requires reboots for these kinds of things? This makes my life positively MISERABLE.
A typical experience for me... I have all of my machines set up dual boot, all with some distro of linux, and either XP Home Edition, or XP Pro. I do most of (but not all) my work on the linux side, but when I do boot over to XP inevitably it's more than just one reboot, it's almost always at least 2, and many times it's 3! (not 3 factorial, just 3 exclamation). Typically this is a result of something in my XP environment updating itself, be it Windows itself, virus protection updates, or just the vendors download of updates. Invariably a download occurs (after granting permission), and then the update, and then the dreaded popup dialog box with some such message, "For the updates to take effect you must restart your computer. Restart now?"
And some of those dialog boxes offer no clickable option other than "OK" which means reboot and you have to jump through an extra cognitive hoop and remember to click the "X" in the corner of the dialog window (to defer the reboot).
On the other side... I don't remember the last time I've had to reboot my linux for any kind of updates, and I do get updates in linux on a pretty regular basis (as many as in Windows). What gives? I don't think the architecture for XP is so arcane it can't support recognizing and using updates without a reboot. Does anyone have solid commentary on this? (Not that my life's going to get any better around this anytime soon -- but it'd be nice to know if there's some bonified (sp?) reason for this step-into-the-twentieth-century XP behavior.)
from your comment:
and, from the parent post (mine):
'nuff said.
Here's what I've noticed, and some recommendations therein....
There are a lot of fly-by-night on-line vendors.... while there is no surefire way to pick them out, here are some of the red flags I've found:
I've had a couple of near disastrous experiences and those more than anything put me in "due diligence" mode. Since then I've found that by doing reasonable research I always get good results.
Bottom line recommendations... when you find a vendor that has done good by you... stick with them, you're likely to continue to get good results and they'll reward you for your loyalty (sometimes)... Pick well known reputable go-betweens.... they carry a big stick and set high standards for their partners -- amazon is one that comes to mind -- you're not going to find the best dollar prices through amazon, but I guarantee you amazon will followup and ensure all goes smoothly, from finalization of the transaction, to shipping and receiving the purchase on time and in good condition and reasonable return policies.
Just curious, but will Microsoft open up their standards so when I am out and about in my linux car they will communicate appropriately and not crash? (I'd say I'm pretty confident my car isn't going to crash, but get really sweaty palms when I imagine Windows cars sharing the road with me...)
Okay, I'm done.... next!
I started out impulsive. Over time I learned more and more, found more resources, found more ways to compare and for me ultimately shopping on-line has become anything BUT impulsive.
There are too many things to consider to allow impulsive buying to dominate:
I suspect the frustration for vendors is akin to the neurosis around "closing the deal", much like a car dealer: "Ken!, That's a Great name....! What do I gotta do to get you to drive off the lot in this car today?" But, that's just not the way it works, or should work for informed buyers. And vendors who get that, win.
Like the article points out, I've many times shelved an item in a shopping cart to come back to it later after more research and a self-confidence in my final decision to buy (Circuit City, et. al., take note: don't cut me off on some arbitrary limit of shopping cart items... it hurts your chances (actually cost you one sale) of the final sale).
Additionally, I've found the on-line info has made me a less impulsive Brick and Mortar shopper. There are some items I refuse (still) to purchase on-line, but that doesn't stop me from using the internet to find out as much as I can about a product before going to the store. And, I've found myself now seeing an interesting item in a Brick and Mortar, and making note of the product name/manufacture and waiting until I've researched it on the internet before buying.
I think in some ways multiple factors are in force. One, shoppers just plain old want to be more informed about their purchase (I know, not ALL shoppers, but more and more). Two, vendors have done little to earn trust (ever try purchasing a tv lately? I couldn't believe the definitions I got from sales people when trying to explain to me: hdtv vs edtv; hdtv 720 vs 1080; hdtv i vs p; sacd vs cd; et. al.). So customers now armed with research capabilities hedge their bets and verify info from multiple sources before entering CC information.
I hope so, but I don't know so. Maybe you know something I don't. Sometimes services are provided in the hope and belief that, though they start out losing money, they are good enough and valuable enough, and yes, maybe even get enough God Love, they will prevail. In that light some eventually reassess, and go away because they just can't afford to provide the service anymore, and others decide to charge so they can continue to offer the service... hoping the "served" agree the service is valuable enough to pay for to continue to receive. I just don't know where various forums stack up in this continuum.
I HOPE slashdot is profitable and continues to offer "this" for free, but I still consider it a valuable enough service in my world I'd pay some fee to sustain that service.
Wow, your reply is even out of line for a slashdotter! So, you're just graduating from college, and got three job offers. This apparently means:
Hmmmm, come to think of it that's about all that means.
Sorry to hear you only got three offers, that pales in comparison to the number of offers I had (not bragging, just stating), and pales pretty much in comparison to others in my graduating class. But, because of your three offers you seem to think you know what makes a resume, I call bullhockey... (I don't even have to look at this guy's resume to know you're off base and out of line....)
And, you might consider for a moment the fact you got and the reason you got three (wow!) job offers has a lot more to do with the fact the market is more willing to recruit and hire newbies (don't care how good you are, don't care how good you think you are, you're a newbie) because among other things, they cost less, they don't expect you (or even want) to hang around for too long, and they don't have to give you benefits. You're myriad offers probably have less to do with your self-anointed position in the technical world and more to do with market conditions.
I don't mean to lauch on you, but come on, it's a shitty world out there without we the tech community being shitty to each other.
I can empathize with your stance you wouldn't want to provide profit (e.g., for slashdot) when you (and the community) are the providers of the content. But, in my opinion (and I don't know the economics of the posted article's site, nor do I know slashdot's), the fee requested or charged seems modest and I'm guessing it barely covers the cost of providing the systems, the bandwidth, etc. to support the forum. Again, I may be wrong about that, but I don't see this akin to gouging and submarining the user population.
On the other hand, were they (or slashdot) to ask something more like $20 A MONTH, I'd question their motive (as I question Microsoft's), and would probably step back and take a look as to whether I still considered posting on that forum at that price a "deal" I'm willing to take.
Again, market forces. Yes, we in many ways create and sustain communities like slashdot, but I know from experience putting something like this platform together, maintaining it, and sustaining ain't easy, and it ain't free. So, I'm willing to cut slashdot a little slackdot (even though it wasn't slashdot the original post points to -- just wanted to use the slackdot pun -- even though it was a bad one..)
I, for one (and hopefully not the only), would be more than willing to pay a fee for something I find useful... Just because it started out free isn't a guarantee it stays free.
And, juxtaposed with other things in my life.... $13/mo for tivo subscription (and don't flame me about mythtv.... time invested is worth money, too), $600 insurance/year to drive my car, $30/mo for ISP access, $30/mo for satellite TV.... I only marvel so many things have been so free for so long. So, in context with other things I pay for, I'd happily pay $20/yr for something like the right to do this on slashdot. Not saying it should happen, but sometimes things just gotta be paid for!
I may not WANT to pay for yet another "thingy", but it's a system of choice, and if the sum total of things I want and their costs exceeds my budget, I selectively cull thingies until equilibrium is re-established. It's the way the market works.
And, for the record, I sometimes fear the OSS/(and linux) community hurts their cause by their sometimes overly militant won't pay for anything mantra. I once asked a commercial vendor of a really good product if they'd consider vending a linux version.... they responded they were too small of a shop and really couldn't afford to create a version for a community that didn't want to pay for their product. Not speaking for the "community" I did tell that company I thought there may be more of a paying public out there in the linux world (but I really don't know). ~
Regex! As processors get faster, memory gets cheaper.... I wouldn't be surprised to see more better, faster, etc. implementations of regex that allow doing what full blown databases do today. Of course that's in a read/only context, but I've implemented full blown "database" applications centered around the regex. And some will point out regex doesn't deal with integrity and data management issues, I would point out many databases are implemented in overkill mode where data integrity and management are handled sufficiently and nicely with underlying OS mechanisms and the database engine itself becomes uneccessary (sometimes evens adds overhead).
Personally, I think so many things are "database" implemented because some glossy brochure somewhere convinced a room full of PHB's they needed a database solution.
Again, let me re-iterate, I wouldn't suggest this replaces and/or solves database issues, and becomes the new direction of database technology, but the increased processor speeds DOES allow for implementations relying solely on "crufty" technologies (e.g., regex, be it perl, awk, python, whatever) instead of databases costing tens of thousands (and more) dollars.
Who said HDTV was going to be too complicated?!? And I was afraid it was going to be a hard sell to convince my Mom what the right technology, model, resolution, etc. would be for her transition into the world of HD TV.... Now that I've RTFA, and read as many posts as possible I see this is going to be a really easy task. To save myself a little time, hope y'all don't mind, I've just e-mailed her the link to this story on /.. I'll let her figure it out.
Dude (or dudette? Guess I shouldn't assume...) We all have our days and posts to be snippy. LOL... I appreciate the followup though.
I find your narrative extremely interesting when you looked back in hindsight... it is, I think, a pretty universal theme when looking at any ripples in the fabric of the technological universe when Microsoft is nearby... They really do come in with a seemingly "We're here to help" mantra, only to bastardize, pillage, corrupt, and as you so nicely put, castrate technology in ways difficult to battle (ever deal with simple TCP/IP apps (sockets) that just wouldn't work right because of Microsoft's "win-sock"?).
And that was the main point of my original post... It's a shame, Microsoft has probably one of the largest brain trusts in the world, but there's an ironic oxymoronic twist to the term "trust" when looking at how Microsoft has chosen to apply that intellect. I know quite a few people there and stay on good terms with my friends there. And when I worked at Microsoft, I'd have to put it way at the top of my professional career experiences. It was a great environment to work in! Lots of fun, lots of stimulation.
But as long as the top at Microsoft includes people of Ballmer/Gates/Allchin ilk, the Microsoft culture will continue to be extremely hostile (and I think counterproductive) to the technical community and its progress therein at large. Sigh.
Tant pis pour nous! (Too bad for us!)
(and, thanks again for the followup.... you're on my list of friends.)
The download is free, but I found it a nightmare to install and get running... it had numerous side-effects (unexpected ones), and I never really got it to work right.
And that was only for my XP Pro machine... SFU requires Pro, so for my XP Home (I don't see why all of the XP machines in a household should have to be Pro) machine the free download would first require a $100 (or more?) upgrade....
As for this being some "offering" from Microsoft (it isn't), the literature from Microsoft around this product pretty much couches SFU as a migratory temp-solution, with beaucoups des docs to describe how to migrate and convert apps on the "unix" side to the Windows side. So, rather than being a tool, I see it as a bait and switch. Just my opinion.
This was actually why I quit shortly after Microsoft hired me. The public spin from Microsoft was very much, "Look, we're doing unix!", but behind closed doors the story was completely different. I escalated this all the way to a guy named Larry Kroger who at the time reported to Gates... I was upset, and asked Mr. Kroger about MS' intent with the POSIX subsystem. He pretty much echoed Margaret's stance. I asked, "What do I tell people who ask for support on this subsystem?" .... "Tell them we don't support it."... "What do I tell people who ask what MS' future plans are for the POSIX subsystem?" .... "Tell them we have none."
Before I left there some tried to convince me to stay on the basis that third parties would step in and flesh out the rest of the POSIX "universe". I made a decision to leave ... pretty much based on what I perceived as a gross deception to the technical community and for their own gain...
First, a post on /. doesn't really lend itself to a "thick" slice (this post will hardly be read because of its length!), but as for making MS look as bad as possible, a thicker slice only makes MS look worse. I don't really have to "design" my slice to make MS look bad, they bear that standard well on their own.
Personal grudge? Maybe, but I don't think so. I don't tell lies about Microsoft, but I find their attitude and practices abhorant (sp?), and certain courts later found their behaviors illegal (more than once). Probably closer to a professional grudge.... try as I might I've never quite been able to shake loose the daily cruft I have to wash off by having to deal with the world MS has created (family, friends, work... all in constant need of some technical attention.... ).
I still maintain friendships with MS people. My college roommate works there. I still have lunch with friends there on campus. So, I don't think personal grudge describes it very well.
Well, I worked for Microsoft, specifically on the original Beta Support team of sixteen.... and we were sternly warned not to refer to NT as standing for New Technology because it did NOT stand for that. They never did tell us what it DID stand for.... Would I be surprised that others at Microsoft DID think it stood for New Technology? No. Would they be wrong? Yes.
And, for my more serious post.... Microsoft has "reached out" before. Seemingly not many remember their big PR campaign when they first released NT circa 1992. One of the big claims, one of the big selling points of their "new technology" (not what NT stands for, btw) was NT's POSIX compliance.... Microsoft purportedly was then about to "join" the open architecture community. They even convinced me to go work for them. But, it turned out they didn't do complete POSIX (only implemented the API, not the User Utilities), and only did the POSIX at all to get government contracts (I know this, I was at an internal presentation where "Margaret" prefaced the presentation with the comments, "We are only doing POSIX as a checkbox, so we can get government contracts..." (I am not making this up.))
In a related headline,
Lucy promises to hold football with finger, Charlie Brown to kick.
You're absolutely right (almost)! It isn't almost irrelevant how good I think I am, it's actually completely irrelevant how good I think I am. Hence my reliance on others to evaluate and pay me. I will on the other hand make the final determination whether or not I think they've valued me highly enough.
As to whether or not I'm running as administrator for no good reason, we may have differing opinions about what good reasons are. As for my track record and whether you think it matters, that's fine (what is it with the attacks today?, how about some civil discussions?)... But, who would you rather ride in a car with, a driver with a spotless record who won't wear a seat belt (no accidents, no tickets, years of driving experience), or someone who wears his seat belt but has mutiple serious injury accidents on his resume? (Hint: consider your inference that if I login regularly and unecessarily as an admin user I somehow don't understand Windows.) (Another Hint: the quality of anything you get will be related to the quality of the standards you choose to define that anything.)
[from my post...] And I pretty much always have myself configured as an admin type user... not because I have to all the time (I do lots of work not needing that level of access) [...] [Your ellipsis... and elimination of context...]
[from YOUR post...] THen whatever it is you're getting, you're being grossly overpaid. [your ad hominem]
Well, I guess it's fortunate you're not deciding how much I get paid. I'll let (and have) my record speak for itself with my employers.
As for any relative commentary, with context..., I only stated I run as admin in Windows because it's more convenient for me, not because I don't know how to do it otherwise. I KNOW how Windows is constructed, I "get" the architecture. I could run non-admin, but it's very inconvenient for the amount of admin type stuff I end having to do. (This analogously on a unix system is NOT inconvenient.) And, running as an admin user, I have NEVER been infected by ANY virus EVER, EVER, EVER!
The only time I HAVE been infected with a Windows virus was on one of my machines at work where I DON'T have a priveleged account.... but the virus still managed to infect my machine.
The problem isn't with Microsoft, it's with application developers...
First off, the problem is shared among Microsoft and its myriad developers of third party software. Microsoft has one of the most obfuscated platforms in the biz... and developers sometimes ignore how apps should be developed, sometimes don't know, and sometimes just plain don't have the resources to keep pace with the moving MS target of where and how apps need to be developed. Contrast this with the unix world where config files and tmp directories, and home directories and how they're laid out are pretty similar to what they were twenty years ago.
And, if you claim the problem is with application developers (for Windows) you sort of imply the world of unix application developers are of better pedigree since the litany of headaches in the admin vs non-admin demarcation is virtually non-existent in the unix world. I'm sure they appreciate the compliment.
It's because so many people are used to doing this by default, and so many third party apps demand Admin privileges, that Windows security is a nightmare. ...,
I find the problem to be the insidious architecture of XP specifically the lack of clear demarcation between a priveleged user and an admin. I consult in both unix and Windows worlds for a living, so I'm on a Windows box a lot! (way more than I like) And I pretty much always have myself configured as an admin type user... not because I have to all the time (I do lots of work not needing that level of access) but more because of the unpredictability of what isn't going to work in some strange way when I'm using XP as an un-priveleged user. It sucks, but I've found it to be the most expedient way, and I'm always nervous about it. I DO configure others as non-priveleged, but it's amazing how often I get called to help with some problem caused by their lack of access (even though the problem SHOULDN'T exist).
On the other hand, I NEVER (as in don't remember the last time I logged in as) log in as root on unix machines, and don't even put myself in a root or bin group. I do use sudo when I need it both for the protection of not inadvertantly mucking something up and for the nice logging artifacts (makes it easy to go back and find out where *I* mucked something up if *I* did). And, I don't give my users any exceptional access rights... AND, I (comparatively speaking) virtually never get support or help calls from those users. Everything pretty much works the way it's supposed to in a unix world -- the unix community is pretty savvy about what the various directory structures are for, what levels of access they provide, and how to work within that paradigm.
My experience leads me to conclude MS is a long way from really solving the admin/general user problems -- it's SO entrenched in their philosophy (remember, Windows really started out and was developed for PC's -- remember what the "P" stands for? -- it should be no surprise there aren't any bright lines drawn between super and regular users.)
I guess the unusual nature of what I encountered was 2 firewalls running on EACH machine, i.e., the braindead MS XP firewall, and the MacAffee firewall (not much less braindead).....
Arrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh! So, I guess I see my chances of EVER just buying a phone slipping even further away. Sigh.
Press, press, press, press, press, press, press..... Send..... Shoot! Was just trying to call home, and created a playlist, no wait!, took an upskirt (illegal in WA) and sent it to Mom, no wait!, ordered pizza from Amazon!