Your points about some of the frustrations of Unix are well made and while I don't find the same frustration (LONG time Unix user here), I appreciate the complexity and the associated learning curve that puts off many (most?) non-Unix users. (I did mention in my post Unix isn't for everyone.)
My point is still that Unix is mostly consistent among implementations of Unix, largely because Unix is based on a standard (at least loosely), POSIX, or XOpen. Thus, if you know Unix, you are likely to know Solaris, Linux, HP/UX, AIX, etc., to the extent you will be able to walk up to a terminal and be productive as in other Unix systems.
One example I encounter almost every day is the notion of a
computer's "state". People just want to turn something off and
on, not easily abstracted for computers.
So, there is this myriad combination of "states", not too
complex for slashdotters to understand but off the scale for lay
users. It doesn't help we use "our" terminology. I've stopped
trying to explain and describe the difference between "hibernate"
and "standby".
Files, directories, logical drives..., all foreign and
abstract curiosities to computer users -- most are technical
artifacts from early on abstractions. It's not a wonder these
lexicons ripple out the the general population, unfortunately
it's of no use to the general users and mostly to their
detriment.
I don't know how to get there, but users/people want computers
to behave like toasters. They want very simple, limited-option
and intuitive behaviors. Not all software lends itself to those
but I think there is a much happier in between, and the group
that can move is the programming group. I don't think the
general population will ever educate itself about the differences
between relational/hierarchical databases, the differences
between NTFS and VFAT file systems, nor do I think they should be
asked to know.
The closest I've seen to getting "there" in computers is
probably Apple... I've seen novices sit in front of Apples and
almost immediately be able to be productive.
The second closed I've seen is Unix/Linux, etc... not so much
because of it's ease-of-use, but because it's one of the most
consistent "flavors" of computing I've experienced (NOTE: I'm not
discounting the complexity of Unix, it's certainly not for
novices, but at least it's consistent).
One of the most popular applications I've written was one
where the interaction with the user was basically a singly input
field, a la Google. Users would instinctively type anything in
the input field, and the application would do a pretty decent job
of offering meaningful results. Analysis of logs showed users
typically received meaningful results from their "input" 80 - 90%
of the time. Granted it was a narrowly defined application, but
I've seen indecipherable interfaces on top of narrowly defined
applications.
The best general computing out there is something I'd
predicted long ago, devices that are for narrowly defined and
specific use with high powered computers underlying the gadgetry
transparently (think TomTom (gps), ipod (no, I'm not a fanboy),
etc.)
Ironically, or perhaps paradoxically, the most dominant
technology available is the least intuitive to just sit down in
front of and use. Of course, there is a latest and greatest new
version out this year that should fix all of that. .
Bottom line, my opinion, users are not lazy,
they just want to get some work done without needing the
equivalent of a Bachelor's in Computer Science to get that work
done.
I've seen radical departure in Microsoft's IE7, couldn't
completely figure it out.
I've seen a radical departure in Gaim's interface, still
scratching my head.
I've seen an amazing myriad of Windows Media Player
interfaces. I've completely given up even trying to use that.
I remember a heated discussion once during a design session on
a major application we were writing for a "large telcom". The
gist of the discussion was we "had to have" a file menu, and it
had to be on the top left of the application even though there
was no notion of "File" for this application. The rationale?
Because that's the way Microsoft did all of their applications.
I give Microsoft credit for taking a chance on a radical
departure from what I've always thought was a stilted and stupid
"required" interface (menus)... I hold little hope they get (got)
it right considering Microsoft carried the old standard into the
21st century.
I find it curious they offer no way to use the old menu
system. I'd be inclined not to want the old way, but for the
sake of familiarity, it'd seem the more sane thing to do to offer
the old menu interface as an option.
I predict the government will lose more data this way than
when storing data unencrypted. And, when they lose it this
way, they won't be able to get it back. At least when they
lose a stolen laptop and get it back, they usually still get
their data.
And, stealing laptops isn't how people are trying to steal
data from the government... stealing laptops is how people are
trying to steal laptops. Those going after government data have
better ways to approach it than stealing laptops.
So, when the government starts losing keys, and not finding
anyone with the master key, we the people lose data. Hope it's
not too important.
OTOH, the list of requirements is interesting... but, I
remember the day of artificially created drives to save space on
what used to be the precious commodity of hard drive storage.
Can't remember the name of the product but it basically created a
large blob on your drive and managed it transparently and
compressed data into that blob. Of course that was fine until
the first minor corruption.
Wouldn't it seem encryption is similar? It's hard enough to
maintain perfect integrity with unperturbed data, what extra risk
to failure does encryption introduce? There are so many points
of potential corruption and failure: improper use (procedural);
software bug introducing corruption; loss of keys resulting in
lockout from data; incompatibilities with patches (regression
testing for that is nice, but can't be perfect).
I'm not sure this is something the government can pull off.
This isn't even a problem of "paying up".... the small one-person companies don't even qualify to get certified for the green status... no amount of money will anoint them. This is where is starts to be unfair.
Microsoft may think they've solved a problem and maybe they
have, but this could be creating a bigger problem, though as
usual it'll be no skin off of Microsoft's nose.
Microsoft's stance (FTA):
Microsoft says green
shouldn't be considered a seal of approval, but rather a sign
that the site owner is a legitimate business.
It may not be formal logic (all farmers wear overalls,
therefor if I wear overalls.... (hint: I am not a farmer)), but
most internet users are going to make the simple logical leap and
assume that not "green" implies not legitimate.
It's easy for Microsoft to skate... they don't live the
existence of normal business - it's a shame they have so much
input into what others' business rules look like. This probably
isn't fair. There has to be a legitimate way to become
legitimate.
It's an interesting correlation, but the article/study
doesn't give a convincing argument "positive" feelings can
prevent illness. It simply reports positive feelings and
emotions are closely correlated to resistance to acquiring or
displaying symptoms from
influenza (rhinovirus).
I don't discount a positive attitude is a good thing to have,
but a more rigorous approach could have given better or more
convincing results. For example, is it possible some people have
a less positive outlook or less positive emotions
because they have a less effective immune system
and therefor are more often ill (thus introducing a possible
reason for the less positive emotions)?
Relatedly, is it possible those with positive outlooks and
emotions are just that because they have a strong immune system
and are rarely ill?
I'd be interested in seeing a study where some of the
"negative" subjects were trained in positive emotions and
reintroduced to the study to see if their results are different.
I'd like to guess positive feelings positively influences their
health, but this study doesn't give that proof.
(My favorite example of this kind of "study" is the
correlation between increased sales of ice cream and drownings,
leading some to possibly think ice cream increases drowning
risk... of course ignoring the fact that ice cream sales increase
in warmer weather when more people are swimming.)
I don't know much about ISECOM, but aside from being
virtually indecipherable reading, I don't find their list: 1) to
be crimes (necessarily) and/or b) credible.
Consider #7 (a short and sweet one):
Your bank
will add more small print and find new ways to charge for
internet-enabled things they save money on but they call it a new
service so you pay more for it.
I have had more distaste for the banking industry over the
last ten years... but banks are in a competitive market (so far),
and are fairly tightly regulated. Their internet-enabled
"things" may or may not save them money, a lot of times maybe
not, but more fairly would be described as poorly implemented and
hardly worth paying for. Banks, OTOH, are allowed to charge for
their services, poorly implemented or not.
Also, consider "crime" #9:
The sweet girl from
procurements with the pink-laced keds gets caught selling toner
cartridges on E-bay which she stole from your office printer and
she tells the boss that she didn't know it was from there because
you gave it to her and when they go to investigate they find
some work documents on your personal USB key drive that you
needed to move files to another computer in a department with a
printer that still had toner along with a file full of MP3s and
spreadsheet full of numbers you'd been toying with to see if it's
feasible to start your own competing business.
Consider it not so much for considering as much as for just
plain interpreting it... aside from the fact it's a multi-runon
(I think) sentence and it's a hundred words (give or take), I'm not sure
what it's saying.
This article probably shouldn't have been posted. (Nor, I
guess, should this post... sigh.)
I'm downloading the trial version now.... more on that in a
minute. My question would be, "How much better is it than
OpenOffice, and how razor thin is the difference between it and
Microsoft Office, and how compatible compared with Open Office?"
I've had expectations raised many times in the past and while
always initially excited found myself not using any products that
had rough edges. For the longest time that basically meant I
used Microsoft when I had to, vi and vim the rest of the time:-). Open Office was the first product with sufficient polish
and compatibility, so much so I could pretty much plug and play
replace Office for people with little fear they would have
trouble adapting.
Anything that falls short of that is likely to have problems
gaining purchase in market share. I've used all of the KDE
products, ABISoft, etc.... none of them really measured up. That
isn't to they were bad products, many of them would
be considered excellent in and of themselves, but that isn't the
yardstick the buying public uses (and will use).
Well, I've downloaded and installed the trial version. I know
it's not fair, but here is my five minute review (which is about
all I have time to give for new products competing with products
with which I already have perfectly good solutions):
Download and install went flawlessly, a requirement for any
product anymore -- if the install doesn't go seamlessly, I won't
spend a lot more time trying to figure out why. The program
fired up cleanly, and was easy and intuitive enough to use
especially if you've used any word processor or spreadsheet
before. The graphics, layout, and presentation were good but the
icons were not crisp as Microsoft's or Open Office's.
I don't have a suite of files to test for compatibility with
Office and Open Office, but as I indicated, I have a solution for
this type of work (Open Office), and I'm not inclined to spend
much time beyond apparent return on investment.
PROS: Easy download and install, very similar
to Microsoft Office (though that will change with the new
Microsoft Office, not necessarily a bad thing), inexpensive
comopared to Microsoft Office, established company,
multi-platform and multi-form factor (for PDAs, though other than
browsing, I'm not inclined to do much word processing and
spreadsheeting (verb?) on PDAs).
CONS: Expensive compared to Open Office, not
enough better (in my opinion) to warrant the switch, expensive
to add typefaces, "compatibility" with Microsoft is a moving
target -- one for which there is no guarantee of currency.
Cool that there's another player... Would I switch? Probably
not. YMMV.
Simplicity is good. I love my wall switches, up is on, down is
off (unless it's one of the three ways, then it's just a toggle away
from the opposite state). But we also have some apparent wall switches
with a POT built in. Still simple, still nice, still easy to figure out
how to use. Of course now you have to know a little more about lighting
and bulbs to ensure in you energy savings you don't put in a generic
fluorescent -- they won't dim (there are some made to do just that).
Now consider some of our sexiest light switches... I hate them...
they have a touch sensitive surface that turns them off and on...
nothing intuitive about them, just flat bronze colored metal surface in
the middle of the wall plate. Hmmmm, the lights aren't bright. Yeah,
turns out if you touch and maintain touch, the lights will brighten and
or dim depending on which way they're currently "pointed". These
switches people don't even bother trying to use (guests). Also, it's a
real guessing game on the endpoint of full bright or full dim.
Oh, and we have some light switches that are rockers with dimmers
builtin. Press and hold top or bottom to dim up or down. But, to set
the bright, or dim, there's a slider on the right you move with a
mysterious array of green LEDs to "indicate" what you're setting.
Then there's the dimmer rocker with an ON/OFF rocker at the bottom...
yes, you can only dim and bright with the main rocker, the small rocker
at the bottom is the on and off.
And, we have two light switches whose rocker panels flip open to
reveal a programmable timer underneath.
I know and care enough to basically turn the lights on and off in our
house. I vote for simplicity.
(I haven't even begun to describe the myriad other "simple"
devices... phones, cordless phones... Most things that used to be
simple everyday activities are doable only by those in our household "in
the know". It's all learnable, it shouldn't have to be.)
I'm just happy the RIAA doesn't have their (filthy?) hands
in the journalism pie (as far as we know). Can you imagine what
some the ramifications would be?:
encrypted downloadable content on a per-story basis,
playable only on your computer and your portable reader.
pressure on universities to prohibit document sharing.
lawsuits of people found to have been reading on-line
newspapers illegally (looking over another's shoulder, etc.)
smaller cuts of profits for the actual authors of articles
"piracy tax" added to any blank paper, ink, pens, etc.,
sold to offset potential
copying and printing of unauthorized content.
newspapers and magazines sold in un-openable shrink wrap.
As for what will happen to journalism, I think there'll be
some equilibrium established. Anecdotally, at the prompting of
browsing an on-line magazine (actually, two) I found myself
re-subscribing to the printed magazines for the first time in
over ten years. While there's nothing like the currency of
on-line and RSS based news, there's still nothing like the
portability and feel of paper in your hands.
Neither computers, nor the internet have managed to replace
the intimacy of ink and paper.
I do think a nice (and maybe unexpected) byproduct of the
internet is many writers get a chance for exposure than ever
before... and hence grass roots popularity gains more power over
hand-selected and pre-anointed journalists giving us: more
choice; better reading; and ultimately better reporting.
Each new release, each patch, each service pack I keep
waiting for the perfect, all-right-I'll-settle-for-well-behaved
advanced power control. I find this unsettling Vista may not
deliver. One "feature" I always treasure in Windows systems is
its "better" support for power control.
At least Windows with its more cozy relationship with chip and
BIOS industry supposedly offers ACPI for fast "sleep" and
"rewake" functionality. In fact that was my trick way to get
ACPI for linux when it was really important by running a vmware
install of linux within a well behaved windows (not always as
well behaved as I'd have wished, but better than the problematic
ACPI linux support).
And now, out of the gates (sic) Vista may not deliver? That's
going to leave a mark. I'd considered getting a machine for
educational purposes (since I do support for everyone I know),
but I'd considered waiting for some of the initial bugs to get
ironed out. I just didn't expect this big of an initial
speedbump. Guess there's not much to do but wait for Microsoft
to get it right, or close to right.
Also, I thought I'd read they were offering super-sized power
control a la scheduled up and down times, etc. More vaporware?
I'm still amazed they get to skate on this kind of stuff.
Wow, 6,000 pages to describe an "open" format? Never
underestimate the power of committees.
Sutor, IBM's dissenting voter says: "The practical effect
is the only people who are going to be in a position to implement
Microsoft's specifications are Microsoft." This in the
context that the OpenDocument (competing) standard is only 700
pages. Seems like both must be quite verbose, but I'd opt for
mastering 700 pages.
6,000 is a lot of pages to master, but it
should be freely available for others to interpret, correct? On
the other hand, since it is "essence of Microsoft", there's
probably lots to misstep with and lots to nuance for
interpretation letting Microsoft essentially maintain a
proprietary flavor of a supposedly open standard.
Also of note from the article:
Van den Beld of
ECMA International said the standard recognized reality. "The
vast amount of data in the world is in Microsoft format," he
said.
Van den Beld might be an idiot.
Using his logic we should strike Microsoft Windows XXXXX as the
standard for OSes, not.
Hopefully there is still some inertia for the OpenDocument
(yes, I know it's an ISO Standard)
standard to gain purchase and compete. It is largely the
emergence and work done with OpenDocument that has pushed
Microsoft into the uncomfortable arena of pretending to like open
standards.
I kind of like the older Google satellite pictures better. I got laid off a couple of years ago, but the satellite picture of my bus stop still shows my car parked there so I can still feel like I have a job.
This is PR crap, and Yahoo along with EMI don't deserve the light of day for exposure about this stunt.
I went to the yahoo music web site, and nowhere on "page one" is there a hint about selling mp3s.
So, yahoo and EMI skate by getting a publicity tour out of this while not even really brushing up against what non-DRM music is all about? (I remember the last unencumbered debacle, they were selling a Jessica Simpson track, and they would customized the track to put your name in the song.... Sheesh)
I really wish these people would go away with their stunts or be ignored (I know, I'm not ignoring, huh?).
If Microsoft were less predatory and less a bully in
business maybe the rest of the world would stop looking down
their noses at Microsoft's "research". As it is, it looks less
like research and more like unfettered spending to find "yet
another" way to dominate.
I welcome research from any company. I'm guessing I've
probably used what amounts to "innovation" from Microsoft,
derivative of work from their labs.
Unfortunately for Microsoft (but true to their character) they
have tools for mouthpieces like Ballmer. Microsoft inks a deal
in what
could only be viewed with raised eyebrows, and Ballmer punctuates
that with "they're infringing our IP anyway...". As long as
Microsoft continues to be so hostile to the world in general,
they get what they sow.
Their research may be golden, but it's ill-gotten gains, the
world thinks so, and the world is probably right. The fact that
Microsoft has such a corner on every market that they can hire
25% of the Computer Science PhD candidates only adds fuel to the
fires of suspicion.
In the interim, it's a shame Bell Labs has gone from world
leader to nothing... budget cuts, etc. (Lucent)... there was some
real research there, and lots of it was shared with the world.
Fishy maybe. I don't know. Again, I don't have any problem with Google snubbing Microsoft. Google isn't stifling any competition by doing so. It would be different if Microsoft couldn't move their product because of Google's "anti-Microsoft" behavior, but that scenario isn't even on the radar.
And for those interested in information about Excel, I would guess there isn't anybody anywhere that doesn't have an idea about how to get information on Excel.
As for not seeing Excel in the first few links, appropriately Microsoft does land in the top five. So, there is Microsoft representation to be found and with very high (just not number one) ranking. I give credit to Google for algorithms that use more than pure raw numbers to assign top placement to links. Are Google's algorithms pure?, and are the results real that Google would come out number one? I don't know, but I don't care.
Like I said, they give ample "other" representation in their results, and at the same time give drop dead great result results for research. As long as they continue to do that, and there is continued competition I'm loving it.
I once gave a presentation on Linux to a corporate "get
together"... a full auditorium. While I shanked the Linux
presentation, I did get off on an Open Source tangent that
spilled over into the next time segment. Over 100 audience
members stayed.
I shared my experiences about Open Source and why I thought
conceptually there were a lot of great returns on investment by
thinking in terms of Open Source. I suggested as a first step
corporately we could begin to think of ourselves as an Open
Source community whereby any code anybody created
anywhere in the company be made available for
use by anybody else.
Note: I did not put this out as a suggestion
for "code repository", a concept I have seen fail time and time
again (usually because of heavy handed requirements to "go to the
well" for already written code, usually poorly written and
ill-suited for the task at hand). Instead I saw this as an
opportunity for real code sharing in a community whereby status
(and maybe even title) was elevated by putting something out
there others liked so much, they wanted to use
it.
I described all of the tools, "slashcode", etc. that could
provide infrastructure. The interest was palpable... but the
audience was mostly tech staff. Ultimately nothing happened...
as managers pretty much stated they weren't about to let any of
their staff share their code to other projects.
Yes, Open Source/sharing is an acquired taste, not one easy to
get corporate management to try. When and until corporate management loosens up their uptight world view a bit and be a bit more willing to share, maybe you'll see Open Source gain purchase.
It's a lot different, so different it's not a point of
discussion, yet. There are so many alternative options for
search engines out there.
I've tried many other search engines. I like that there are
so many to choose from and try. And try again. But so far
Google for most uses is the best first choice (for me). Google
isn't forcing me to use them.
When I do use Google, I have no qualms they would ratchet up
any ad placement or search results in their favor, it's their
widget, and as long as it is giving me results that help me get
through my research requirements,... hmmmm, not really the issue.
Oh yes, abuse of monopoly.
Google isn't a monopoly. Google is dominant because they are
good. They haven't stifled competition, they've created red hot
innovation competition. Heck, Google has even gotten Microsoft
to look like they're at least now trying to innovate.
Google's behavior is nothing like Microsoft's.... at least not
yet, but additionally Google's beginnings look nothing like
Microsoft's. Google emerged from a couple of people putting
together cool ways of getting to information and grew that into
some pretty amazing technology (do a Google and find and check
out how their Google File System works -- it's amazing in its
elegance, simplicity, and power). Google caught on in a world
technology dominated by others and by dint of excellence have
taken top spot.
As for the author's claim Google holds the top spot for the
words:
I tried a bunch of these -- while I do see google as a top
spot ad, it's hardly a dominant position. And there are many
other sponsored links. This is nothing like the old Microsoft
"don't dare put any icons or links of any
competitor on any machine you sell or we won't give you license
to sell Windows" fiat.
I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care
that the playing field remains level. I'm sure Google plays
tough, but in the big picture I still hold faith Google plays
fair.
I worked for one of these companies, and they come in the
bottom five.... I'll not name the company, good luck in your
quest to figure it out.
They laid me off after 21 years, a RCH away from full
retirement with benefits... go figure. I was in the middle of a
research project that would've connected the corporate on-line
directory to APIs for IP phones (this was 3 years) ago. There
was an entire team ready to fund my work and we figured in
addition to increased productivity, there would be incredible
hard dollars savings (no we hadn't done the business case yet).
It was a promising project and there was a lot of buzz around it.
But, meanwhile, my real responsibilities were to be on the
team that created the public facing web site...
Here's why a company like this doesn't end up in the top
ratings: our team implemented the web site in.net 1.1 after
almost completely creating a java version of it -- Microsoft
convinced "us" it was important. And of course it was equally
important to port it to.net 2 when that came out, what a
nightmare.... those were decisions being made at the managerial
level. It didn't matter all of the extra work added
zero value to the customer experience, it
mattered we had.net 2.0.
At the team level, I once forgot to capitalize an object or
method correctly and was confronted by a peer. This was a day
after the code was checked in, tested, and part of the working
code. He insisted/demanded it be made kosher, and we spent a
little more than half a day getting it "fixed". (I know
someone's going to say that's an easy fix... it isn't when the
re-factoring tools don't work the way they're supposed to and you
have to start pulling in the threads by hand -- and that's what
we had to do.)
And our internal clients? Wow... we spent meeting after
meeting trying to all agree on buttons and their shape and their
color... mind you this was an argument about the shade of button,
not selecting from a pallette of colors.
Attention to service for real outside customers? Nil.
Yeah, I liked the company once, it might be apparent on many
levels why I don't now. By the time they booted me, I was
reminded of the ill-fated Eastern
Airlines crash all for the sake of paying too much attention
to some landing gear lights while the plane slowly flew into the
ground. Way too much attention to virtually irrelevant detail
and way too little attention to customer satisfaction.
Actually I'd like to be able to get an "original" image a
la the CDs you buy, but allow single CD tracks. Would I pay more
for that? I don't know. I've never bought any of the DRM'ed
crap because it's DRM'ed, so I don't know how badly (or well)
compressed they are.
If there are audible compression artifacts
anywhere in today's downloadable DRM'ed music
I'd probably insist the compression be less or not at all, after
all I'm paying for music, and a compression artifact (to me) is
analogous to stuck pixels in a monitor or camera... my threshold
of tolerance is zero for that.
(I had one of the very original SONY Mini-disk recorders, and
remember a passage of a Doobie Brothers track where some high
pitched bells instead of sounding like high pitched bells sounded
like someone sneezing... unacceptable... completely altered my
experience of MD (along with numerous other things about SONY).)
So, bottom line, DRM aside, I consider it the responsibility
of the music industry to deliver what they claim they are
delivering... music (usually). I'm willing to bet what they are
delivering has artifacts... I wouldn't pay more to get rid of
that, I'd demand they replace the defective product.
The nice thing about my CDs and my derivative mp3 collection
(recorded at 320 VBR) is if I hear an artifact in
my track, I have the unedited original, I rip it
at higher quality until the artifact isn't there.
(As an aside, I think the article makes an exceptionally great
point not directly related to the users:
That's
important to sound engineers, too. "You spend a long time
training your ears and striving to perfect your craft and put out
a better product," says Jeff Willens, an audio-restoration
specialist at Vidipax in Long Island City, N.Y. "When you finally
discover that these things are being listened to on cellphones
and through pea-size earphones, it's kind of
disheartening."
So, in addition to short-shrifting consumers with
less-than-perfect (to the ear) product, the movers of
downloadable music thumb their noses at the collective profession
of sound engineers and engineering... pretty rude.
Granted, a lot of the music out there is crap -- it's no
justification for compromise on the medium.
Oh, and re the subject line of my post... I'd pay a little
more for non-DRMed music, not uncompressed music.
I worked for a company that set up an impromptu video
conference just between two cities 30 miles apart (Denver and
Boulder). We chose these two sites because it was cost
"effective" for that short a distance to see if
video-conferencing worked.
It didn't. While the "conference room" drew heavy initial
traffic, novelty was the bigger draw, not utility. We conducted
several conferences and even with high-quality high-speed links
video conferencing soon fell into disuse.
I don't know if today they still have that link, but I never
felt it offered much in the way of effective communication and
connectivity with other offices and I didn't know of any others
who thought so either.
If you've got lots of money to throw away
this might be fun for a while, but if you're counting your budget
dollars carefully your money might be better spent on other
communication methods. (Heck, with the savings you may be able
to upgrade to Vista and Office 2007 for all.)
I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on the concept, but video
conferencing is difficult. Face to face meetings require many
interpretations of nuance that video conferencing just can't
provide.
I just had this happen... I find the plastic wrap not only
dangerous to me to remove, but it can be difficult to get the
product out of the packaging sometime without damaging it.
I just bought a mini-jack to RCA cable by Dynex. I cut
carefully around the edge and when separating the clamshell
halves nearly cut myself on the hard sharp plastic... what the
heck? Not an unusual occurance with today's annoying packaging
but I've gotten pretty good at it. The problem with this
package?
Turns out, there was an inner-shell piece "cleverly" designed
to hold the ends of the cable in display in middle of the
package, a third piece of plastic I couldn't see, and didn't
anticipate. In extracting the cable (finally!) the edge of one
of the plastics nicked the exterior of the cable... no harm, no
foul I guess, but a tug a little harder or in a slightly different
direction and the cable could have been compromised.
Also had a remote control I bought for my Dad a couple of
months ago. I easily navigated the surrounding plastic and
strategically popped out the remote only to find what had
appeared to be a cardboard insert was instead the user's manual now cut in half
replete with pages of remote codes (for universal remote). So, I
had to tape the manual back together to look up the codes.
Throw into the rage mix CD packaging, infuriating! I've had
CD jewel cases damaged in the process of freeing my music. And
how annoying that "pull" tape holding the jewel case shut! It's
almost impossible to remove cleanly and even if you get it off
there's almost always some annoying residue.
I don't know if the intent is to be clever with packaging,
prevent theft, but it's gotten so bad I have started factoring in
how much pain the packaging looks to promise vs. how much I want
the product. Sounds silly, but after a few plastic cuts for a
couple of two-buck knick knacks...
Wait, software doesn't wear out, at least not like cars do.
This is where Microsoft has to re-figure the business model.
Their products (OS, Office suite, etc.) are so mature people and
companies actually have to rationalize moving to the new plan.
In the old days migration paths often followed needs -- today
most needs are fulfilled. How many thousands of fonts could one
possibly want in their documents?
It's time to think about service. It's time to think about
customers. It's time to think about humility. Microsoft, other
than their monopoly, no longer has a hammer to coerce the public
into the new products -- though that's probably enough.
Meanwhile, with all of this talk of a long adoption window,
wouldn't this be one of the most opportune times for things Linux
to gain purchase (how ironic for a free product)? As companies
look at budgets and costs, couldn't Linux now get it's foot in
the door? I hope so...
(Note: from the mysterious slashdot future, how ironic -- an
article about Microsoft dissing Open Source as insecure because
people can look at the code! Looks like Microsoft is hard at
work ensuring a glance at Linux and other Open Source software is
at least uncomfortable.)
Slashdot Mirror
Your points about some of the frustrations of Unix are well made and while I don't find the same frustration (LONG time Unix user here), I appreciate the complexity and the associated learning curve that puts off many (most?) non-Unix users. (I did mention in my post Unix isn't for everyone.)
My point is still that Unix is mostly consistent among implementations of Unix, largely because Unix is based on a standard (at least loosely), POSIX, or XOpen. Thus, if you know Unix, you are likely to know Solaris, Linux, HP/UX, AIX, etc., to the extent you will be able to walk up to a terminal and be productive as in other Unix systems.
One example I encounter almost every day is the notion of a computer's "state". People just want to turn something off and on, not easily abstracted for computers.
So, there is this myriad combination of "states", not too complex for slashdotters to understand but off the scale for lay users. It doesn't help we use "our" terminology. I've stopped trying to explain and describe the difference between "hibernate" and "standby".
Files, directories, logical drives..., all foreign and abstract curiosities to computer users -- most are technical artifacts from early on abstractions. It's not a wonder these lexicons ripple out the the general population, unfortunately it's of no use to the general users and mostly to their detriment.
I don't know how to get there, but users/people want computers to behave like toasters. They want very simple, limited-option and intuitive behaviors. Not all software lends itself to those but I think there is a much happier in between, and the group that can move is the programming group. I don't think the general population will ever educate itself about the differences between relational/hierarchical databases, the differences between NTFS and VFAT file systems, nor do I think they should be asked to know.
The closest I've seen to getting "there" in computers is probably Apple... I've seen novices sit in front of Apples and almost immediately be able to be productive.
The second closed I've seen is Unix/Linux, etc... not so much because of it's ease-of-use, but because it's one of the most consistent "flavors" of computing I've experienced (NOTE: I'm not discounting the complexity of Unix, it's certainly not for novices, but at least it's consistent).
One of the most popular applications I've written was one where the interaction with the user was basically a singly input field, a la Google. Users would instinctively type anything in the input field, and the application would do a pretty decent job of offering meaningful results. Analysis of logs showed users typically received meaningful results from their "input" 80 - 90% of the time. Granted it was a narrowly defined application, but I've seen indecipherable interfaces on top of narrowly defined applications.
The best general computing out there is something I'd predicted long ago, devices that are for narrowly defined and specific use with high powered computers underlying the gadgetry transparently (think TomTom (gps), ipod (no, I'm not a fanboy), etc.)
Ironically, or perhaps paradoxically, the most dominant technology available is the least intuitive to just sit down in front of and use. Of course, there is a latest and greatest new version out this year that should fix all of that. .
Bottom line, my opinion, users are not lazy, they just want to get some work done without needing the equivalent of a Bachelor's in Computer Science to get that work done.
I've seen radical departure in Microsoft's IE7, couldn't completely figure it out.
I've seen a radical departure in Gaim's interface, still scratching my head.
I've seen an amazing myriad of Windows Media Player interfaces. I've completely given up even trying to use that.
I remember a heated discussion once during a design session on a major application we were writing for a "large telcom". The gist of the discussion was we "had to have" a file menu, and it had to be on the top left of the application even though there was no notion of "File" for this application. The rationale? Because that's the way Microsoft did all of their applications.
I give Microsoft credit for taking a chance on a radical departure from what I've always thought was a stilted and stupid "required" interface (menus)... I hold little hope they get (got) it right considering Microsoft carried the old standard into the 21st century.
I find it curious they offer no way to use the old menu system. I'd be inclined not to want the old way, but for the sake of familiarity, it'd seem the more sane thing to do to offer the old menu interface as an option.
I predict the government will lose more data this way than when storing data unencrypted. And, when they lose it this way, they won't be able to get it back. At least when they lose a stolen laptop and get it back, they usually still get their data.
And, stealing laptops isn't how people are trying to steal data from the government... stealing laptops is how people are trying to steal laptops. Those going after government data have better ways to approach it than stealing laptops.
So, when the government starts losing keys, and not finding anyone with the master key, we the people lose data. Hope it's not too important.
OTOH, the list of requirements is interesting... but, I remember the day of artificially created drives to save space on what used to be the precious commodity of hard drive storage. Can't remember the name of the product but it basically created a large blob on your drive and managed it transparently and compressed data into that blob. Of course that was fine until the first minor corruption.
Wouldn't it seem encryption is similar? It's hard enough to maintain perfect integrity with unperturbed data, what extra risk to failure does encryption introduce? There are so many points of potential corruption and failure: improper use (procedural); software bug introducing corruption; loss of keys resulting in lockout from data; incompatibilities with patches (regression testing for that is nice, but can't be perfect).
I'm not sure this is something the government can pull off.
This isn't even a problem of "paying up".... the small one-person companies don't even qualify to get certified for the green status... no amount of money will anoint them. This is where is starts to be unfair.
Microsoft may think they've solved a problem and maybe they have, but this could be creating a bigger problem, though as usual it'll be no skin off of Microsoft's nose.
Microsoft's stance (FTA):
It may not be formal logic (all farmers wear overalls, therefor if I wear overalls.... (hint: I am not a farmer)), but most internet users are going to make the simple logical leap and assume that not "green" implies not legitimate.
It's easy for Microsoft to skate... they don't live the existence of normal business - it's a shame they have so much input into what others' business rules look like. This probably isn't fair. There has to be a legitimate way to become legitimate.
It's an interesting correlation, but the article/study doesn't give a convincing argument "positive" feelings can prevent illness. It simply reports positive feelings and emotions are closely correlated to resistance to acquiring or displaying symptoms from influenza (rhinovirus).
I don't discount a positive attitude is a good thing to have, but a more rigorous approach could have given better or more convincing results. For example, is it possible some people have a less positive outlook or less positive emotions because they have a less effective immune system and therefor are more often ill (thus introducing a possible reason for the less positive emotions)?
Relatedly, is it possible those with positive outlooks and emotions are just that because they have a strong immune system and are rarely ill?
I'd be interested in seeing a study where some of the "negative" subjects were trained in positive emotions and reintroduced to the study to see if their results are different. I'd like to guess positive feelings positively influences their health, but this study doesn't give that proof.
(My favorite example of this kind of "study" is the correlation between increased sales of ice cream and drownings, leading some to possibly think ice cream increases drowning risk... of course ignoring the fact that ice cream sales increase in warmer weather when more people are swimming.)
I don't know much about ISECOM, but aside from being virtually indecipherable reading, I don't find their list: 1) to be crimes (necessarily) and/or b) credible.
Consider #7 (a short and sweet one):
I have had more distaste for the banking industry over the last ten years... but banks are in a competitive market (so far), and are fairly tightly regulated. Their internet-enabled "things" may or may not save them money, a lot of times maybe not, but more fairly would be described as poorly implemented and hardly worth paying for. Banks, OTOH, are allowed to charge for their services, poorly implemented or not.
Also, consider "crime" #9:
Consider it not so much for considering as much as for just plain interpreting it... aside from the fact it's a multi-runon (I think) sentence and it's a hundred words (give or take), I'm not sure what it's saying.
This article probably shouldn't have been posted. (Nor, I guess, should this post... sigh.)
I'm downloading the trial version now.... more on that in a minute. My question would be, "How much better is it than OpenOffice, and how razor thin is the difference between it and Microsoft Office, and how compatible compared with Open Office?"
I've had expectations raised many times in the past and while always initially excited found myself not using any products that had rough edges. For the longest time that basically meant I used Microsoft when I had to, vi and vim the rest of the time :-). Open Office was the first product with sufficient polish
and compatibility, so much so I could pretty much plug and play
replace Office for people with little fear they would have
trouble adapting.
Anything that falls short of that is likely to have problems gaining purchase in market share. I've used all of the KDE products, ABISoft, etc.... none of them really measured up. That isn't to they were bad products, many of them would be considered excellent in and of themselves, but that isn't the yardstick the buying public uses (and will use).
Well, I've downloaded and installed the trial version. I know it's not fair, but here is my five minute review (which is about all I have time to give for new products competing with products with which I already have perfectly good solutions):
Download and install went flawlessly, a requirement for any product anymore -- if the install doesn't go seamlessly, I won't spend a lot more time trying to figure out why. The program fired up cleanly, and was easy and intuitive enough to use especially if you've used any word processor or spreadsheet before. The graphics, layout, and presentation were good but the icons were not crisp as Microsoft's or Open Office's.
I don't have a suite of files to test for compatibility with Office and Open Office, but as I indicated, I have a solution for this type of work (Open Office), and I'm not inclined to spend much time beyond apparent return on investment.
PROS: Easy download and install, very similar to Microsoft Office (though that will change with the new Microsoft Office, not necessarily a bad thing), inexpensive comopared to Microsoft Office, established company, multi-platform and multi-form factor (for PDAs, though other than browsing, I'm not inclined to do much word processing and spreadsheeting (verb?) on PDAs).
CONS: Expensive compared to Open Office, not enough better (in my opinion) to warrant the switch, expensive to add typefaces, "compatibility" with Microsoft is a moving target -- one for which there is no guarantee of currency.
Cool that there's another player... Would I switch? Probably not. YMMV.
Simplicity is good. I love my wall switches, up is on, down is off (unless it's one of the three ways, then it's just a toggle away from the opposite state). But we also have some apparent wall switches with a POT built in. Still simple, still nice, still easy to figure out how to use. Of course now you have to know a little more about lighting and bulbs to ensure in you energy savings you don't put in a generic fluorescent -- they won't dim (there are some made to do just that).
Now consider some of our sexiest light switches... I hate them... they have a touch sensitive surface that turns them off and on... nothing intuitive about them, just flat bronze colored metal surface in the middle of the wall plate. Hmmmm, the lights aren't bright. Yeah, turns out if you touch and maintain touch, the lights will brighten and or dim depending on which way they're currently "pointed". These switches people don't even bother trying to use (guests). Also, it's a real guessing game on the endpoint of full bright or full dim.
Oh, and we have some light switches that are rockers with dimmers builtin. Press and hold top or bottom to dim up or down. But, to set the bright, or dim, there's a slider on the right you move with a mysterious array of green LEDs to "indicate" what you're setting.
Then there's the dimmer rocker with an ON/OFF rocker at the bottom... yes, you can only dim and bright with the main rocker, the small rocker at the bottom is the on and off.
And, we have two light switches whose rocker panels flip open to reveal a programmable timer underneath.
I know and care enough to basically turn the lights on and off in our house. I vote for simplicity.
(I haven't even begun to describe the myriad other "simple" devices... phones, cordless phones... Most things that used to be simple everyday activities are doable only by those in our household "in the know". It's all learnable, it shouldn't have to be.)
I'm just happy the RIAA doesn't have their (filthy?) hands in the journalism pie (as far as we know). Can you imagine what some the ramifications would be?:
As for what will happen to journalism, I think there'll be some equilibrium established. Anecdotally, at the prompting of browsing an on-line magazine (actually, two) I found myself re-subscribing to the printed magazines for the first time in over ten years. While there's nothing like the currency of on-line and RSS based news, there's still nothing like the portability and feel of paper in your hands.
Neither computers, nor the internet have managed to replace the intimacy of ink and paper.
I do think a nice (and maybe unexpected) byproduct of the internet is many writers get a chance for exposure than ever before... and hence grass roots popularity gains more power over hand-selected and pre-anointed journalists giving us: more choice; better reading; and ultimately better reporting.
Each new release, each patch, each service pack I keep waiting for the perfect, all-right-I'll-settle-for-well-behaved advanced power control. I find this unsettling Vista may not deliver. One "feature" I always treasure in Windows systems is its "better" support for power control.
At least Windows with its more cozy relationship with chip and BIOS industry supposedly offers ACPI for fast "sleep" and "rewake" functionality. In fact that was my trick way to get ACPI for linux when it was really important by running a vmware install of linux within a well behaved windows (not always as well behaved as I'd have wished, but better than the problematic ACPI linux support).
And now, out of the gates (sic) Vista may not deliver? That's going to leave a mark. I'd considered getting a machine for educational purposes (since I do support for everyone I know), but I'd considered waiting for some of the initial bugs to get ironed out. I just didn't expect this big of an initial speedbump. Guess there's not much to do but wait for Microsoft to get it right, or close to right.
Also, I thought I'd read they were offering super-sized power control a la scheduled up and down times, etc. More vaporware?
I'm still amazed they get to skate on this kind of stuff.
Wow, 6,000 pages to describe an "open" format? Never underestimate the power of committees.
Sutor, IBM's dissenting voter says: "The practical effect is the only people who are going to be in a position to implement Microsoft's specifications are Microsoft." This in the context that the OpenDocument (competing) standard is only 700 pages. Seems like both must be quite verbose, but I'd opt for mastering 700 pages.
6,000 is a lot of pages to master, but it should be freely available for others to interpret, correct? On the other hand, since it is "essence of Microsoft", there's probably lots to misstep with and lots to nuance for interpretation letting Microsoft essentially maintain a proprietary flavor of a supposedly open standard.
Also of note from the article:
Van den Beld might be an idiot. Using his logic we should strike Microsoft Windows XXXXX as the standard for OSes, not.Hopefully there is still some inertia for the OpenDocument (yes, I know it's an ISO Standard) standard to gain purchase and compete. It is largely the emergence and work done with OpenDocument that has pushed Microsoft into the uncomfortable arena of pretending to like open standards.
Ms. Schwartz needs a stern talking to.
I kind of like the older Google satellite pictures better. I got laid off a couple of years ago, but the satellite picture of my bus stop still shows my car parked there so I can still feel like I have a job.
This is PR crap, and Yahoo along with EMI don't deserve the light of day for exposure about this stunt.
I went to the yahoo music web site, and nowhere on "page one" is there a hint about selling mp3s.
So, yahoo and EMI skate by getting a publicity tour out of this while not even really brushing up against what non-DRM music is all about? (I remember the last unencumbered debacle, they were selling a Jessica Simpson track, and they would customized the track to put your name in the song.... Sheesh)
I really wish these people would go away with their stunts or be ignored (I know, I'm not ignoring, huh?).
If Microsoft were less predatory and less a bully in business maybe the rest of the world would stop looking down their noses at Microsoft's "research". As it is, it looks less like research and more like unfettered spending to find "yet another" way to dominate.
I welcome research from any company. I'm guessing I've probably used what amounts to "innovation" from Microsoft, derivative of work from their labs.
Unfortunately for Microsoft (but true to their character) they have tools for mouthpieces like Ballmer. Microsoft inks a deal in what could only be viewed with raised eyebrows, and Ballmer punctuates that with "they're infringing our IP anyway...". As long as Microsoft continues to be so hostile to the world in general, they get what they sow.
Their research may be golden, but it's ill-gotten gains, the world thinks so, and the world is probably right. The fact that Microsoft has such a corner on every market that they can hire 25% of the Computer Science PhD candidates only adds fuel to the fires of suspicion.
In the interim, it's a shame Bell Labs has gone from world leader to nothing... budget cuts, etc. (Lucent)... there was some real research there, and lots of it was shared with the world.
Fishy maybe. I don't know. Again, I don't have any problem with Google snubbing Microsoft. Google isn't stifling any competition by doing so. It would be different if Microsoft couldn't move their product because of Google's "anti-Microsoft" behavior, but that scenario isn't even on the radar.
And for those interested in information about Excel, I would guess there isn't anybody anywhere that doesn't have an idea about how to get information on Excel.
As for not seeing Excel in the first few links, appropriately Microsoft does land in the top five. So, there is Microsoft representation to be found and with very high (just not number one) ranking. I give credit to Google for algorithms that use more than pure raw numbers to assign top placement to links. Are Google's algorithms pure?, and are the results real that Google would come out number one? I don't know, but I don't care.
Like I said, they give ample "other" representation in their results, and at the same time give drop dead great result results for research. As long as they continue to do that, and there is continued competition I'm loving it.
I once gave a presentation on Linux to a corporate "get together"... a full auditorium. While I shanked the Linux presentation, I did get off on an Open Source tangent that spilled over into the next time segment. Over 100 audience members stayed.
I shared my experiences about Open Source and why I thought conceptually there were a lot of great returns on investment by thinking in terms of Open Source. I suggested as a first step corporately we could begin to think of ourselves as an Open Source community whereby any code anybody created anywhere in the company be made available for use by anybody else.
Note: I did not put this out as a suggestion for "code repository", a concept I have seen fail time and time again (usually because of heavy handed requirements to "go to the well" for already written code, usually poorly written and ill-suited for the task at hand). Instead I saw this as an opportunity for real code sharing in a community whereby status (and maybe even title) was elevated by putting something out there others liked so much, they wanted to use it.
I described all of the tools, "slashcode", etc. that could provide infrastructure. The interest was palpable... but the audience was mostly tech staff. Ultimately nothing happened... as managers pretty much stated they weren't about to let any of their staff share their code to other projects.
Yes, Open Source/sharing is an acquired taste, not one easy to get corporate management to try. When and until corporate management loosens up their uptight world view a bit and be a bit more willing to share, maybe you'll see Open Source gain purchase.
It's a lot different, so different it's not a point of discussion, yet. There are so many alternative options for search engines out there.
I've tried many other search engines. I like that there are so many to choose from and try. And try again. But so far Google for most uses is the best first choice (for me). Google isn't forcing me to use them.
When I do use Google, I have no qualms they would ratchet up any ad placement or search results in their favor, it's their widget, and as long as it is giving me results that help me get through my research requirements,... hmmmm, not really the issue. Oh yes, abuse of monopoly.
Google isn't a monopoly. Google is dominant because they are good. They haven't stifled competition, they've created red hot innovation competition. Heck, Google has even gotten Microsoft to look like they're at least now trying to innovate.
Google's behavior is nothing like Microsoft's.... at least not yet, but additionally Google's beginnings look nothing like Microsoft's. Google emerged from a couple of people putting together cool ways of getting to information and grew that into some pretty amazing technology (do a Google and find and check out how their Google File System works -- it's amazing in its elegance, simplicity, and power). Google caught on in a world technology dominated by others and by dint of excellence have taken top spot.
As for the author's claim Google holds the top spot for the words:
I tried a bunch of these -- while I do see google as a top spot ad, it's hardly a dominant position. And there are many other sponsored links. This is nothing like the old Microsoft "don't dare put any icons or links of any competitor on any machine you sell or we won't give you license to sell Windows" fiat.
I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care that the playing field remains level. I'm sure Google plays tough, but in the big picture I still hold faith Google plays fair.
I worked for one of these companies, and they come in the bottom five.... I'll not name the company, good luck in your quest to figure it out.
They laid me off after 21 years, a RCH away from full retirement with benefits... go figure. I was in the middle of a research project that would've connected the corporate on-line directory to APIs for IP phones (this was 3 years) ago. There was an entire team ready to fund my work and we figured in addition to increased productivity, there would be incredible hard dollars savings (no we hadn't done the business case yet). It was a promising project and there was a lot of buzz around it.
But, meanwhile, my real responsibilities were to be on the team that created the public facing web site...
Here's why a company like this doesn't end up in the top ratings: our team implemented the web site in .net 1.1 after
almost completely creating a java version of it -- Microsoft
convinced "us" it was important. And of course it was equally
important to port it to .net 2 when that came out, what a
nightmare.... those were decisions being made at the managerial
level. It didn't matter all of the extra work added
zero value to the customer experience, it
mattered we had .net 2.0.
At the team level, I once forgot to capitalize an object or method correctly and was confronted by a peer. This was a day after the code was checked in, tested, and part of the working code. He insisted/demanded it be made kosher, and we spent a little more than half a day getting it "fixed". (I know someone's going to say that's an easy fix... it isn't when the re-factoring tools don't work the way they're supposed to and you have to start pulling in the threads by hand -- and that's what we had to do.)
And our internal clients? Wow... we spent meeting after meeting trying to all agree on buttons and their shape and their color... mind you this was an argument about the shade of button, not selecting from a pallette of colors.
Attention to service for real outside customers? Nil.
Yeah, I liked the company once, it might be apparent on many levels why I don't now. By the time they booted me, I was reminded of the ill-fated Eastern Airlines crash all for the sake of paying too much attention to some landing gear lights while the plane slowly flew into the ground. Way too much attention to virtually irrelevant detail and way too little attention to customer satisfaction.
Actually I'd like to be able to get an "original" image a la the CDs you buy, but allow single CD tracks. Would I pay more for that? I don't know. I've never bought any of the DRM'ed crap because it's DRM'ed, so I don't know how badly (or well) compressed they are.
If there are audible compression artifacts anywhere in today's downloadable DRM'ed music I'd probably insist the compression be less or not at all, after all I'm paying for music, and a compression artifact (to me) is analogous to stuck pixels in a monitor or camera... my threshold of tolerance is zero for that.
(I had one of the very original SONY Mini-disk recorders, and remember a passage of a Doobie Brothers track where some high pitched bells instead of sounding like high pitched bells sounded like someone sneezing... unacceptable... completely altered my experience of MD (along with numerous other things about SONY).)
So, bottom line, DRM aside, I consider it the responsibility of the music industry to deliver what they claim they are delivering... music (usually). I'm willing to bet what they are delivering has artifacts... I wouldn't pay more to get rid of that, I'd demand they replace the defective product.
The nice thing about my CDs and my derivative mp3 collection (recorded at 320 VBR) is if I hear an artifact in my track, I have the unedited original, I rip it at higher quality until the artifact isn't there.
(As an aside, I think the article makes an exceptionally great point not directly related to the users:
So, in addition to short-shrifting consumers with less-than-perfect (to the ear) product, the movers of downloadable music thumb their noses at the collective profession of sound engineers and engineering... pretty rude.
Granted, a lot of the music out there is crap -- it's no justification for compromise on the medium.
Oh, and re the subject line of my post... I'd pay a little more for non-DRMed music, not uncompressed music.
I worked for a company that set up an impromptu video conference just between two cities 30 miles apart (Denver and Boulder). We chose these two sites because it was cost "effective" for that short a distance to see if video-conferencing worked.
It didn't. While the "conference room" drew heavy initial traffic, novelty was the bigger draw, not utility. We conducted several conferences and even with high-quality high-speed links video conferencing soon fell into disuse.
I don't know if today they still have that link, but I never felt it offered much in the way of effective communication and connectivity with other offices and I didn't know of any others who thought so either.
If you've got lots of money to throw away this might be fun for a while, but if you're counting your budget dollars carefully your money might be better spent on other communication methods. (Heck, with the savings you may be able to upgrade to Vista and Office 2007 for all.)
I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on the concept, but video conferencing is difficult. Face to face meetings require many interpretations of nuance that video conferencing just can't provide.
I just had this happen... I find the plastic wrap not only dangerous to me to remove, but it can be difficult to get the product out of the packaging sometime without damaging it.
I just bought a mini-jack to RCA cable by Dynex. I cut carefully around the edge and when separating the clamshell halves nearly cut myself on the hard sharp plastic... what the heck? Not an unusual occurance with today's annoying packaging but I've gotten pretty good at it. The problem with this package?
Turns out, there was an inner-shell piece "cleverly" designed to hold the ends of the cable in display in middle of the package, a third piece of plastic I couldn't see, and didn't anticipate. In extracting the cable (finally!) the edge of one of the plastics nicked the exterior of the cable... no harm, no foul I guess, but a tug a little harder or in a slightly different direction and the cable could have been compromised.
Also had a remote control I bought for my Dad a couple of months ago. I easily navigated the surrounding plastic and strategically popped out the remote only to find what had appeared to be a cardboard insert was instead the user's manual now cut in half replete with pages of remote codes (for universal remote). So, I had to tape the manual back together to look up the codes.
Throw into the rage mix CD packaging, infuriating! I've had CD jewel cases damaged in the process of freeing my music. And how annoying that "pull" tape holding the jewel case shut! It's almost impossible to remove cleanly and even if you get it off there's almost always some annoying residue.
I don't know if the intent is to be clever with packaging, prevent theft, but it's gotten so bad I have started factoring in how much pain the packaging looks to promise vs. how much I want the product. Sounds silly, but after a few plastic cuts for a couple of two-buck knick knacks...
Wait, software doesn't wear out, at least not like cars do. This is where Microsoft has to re-figure the business model. Their products (OS, Office suite, etc.) are so mature people and companies actually have to rationalize moving to the new plan. In the old days migration paths often followed needs -- today most needs are fulfilled. How many thousands of fonts could one possibly want in their documents?
It's time to think about service. It's time to think about customers. It's time to think about humility. Microsoft, other than their monopoly, no longer has a hammer to coerce the public into the new products -- though that's probably enough.
Meanwhile, with all of this talk of a long adoption window, wouldn't this be one of the most opportune times for things Linux to gain purchase (how ironic for a free product)? As companies look at budgets and costs, couldn't Linux now get it's foot in the door? I hope so...
(Note: from the mysterious slashdot future, how ironic -- an article about Microsoft dissing Open Source as insecure because people can look at the code! Looks like Microsoft is hard at work ensuring a glance at Linux and other Open Source software is at least uncomfortable.)