MS Office (OOo is nowhere near as useful as Office)
Cannot open my old MS Office documents
Cannot open my files stored in odt
Does not run on Linux natively
Windows (linux is nowhere near as useful as Windows and the amount of apps/game that it can run)
I do not care about quantity, I care about quality
There is only one Windows game (Freelancer) that I care about that doesn't run under Wine yet
Most of the applications on windows I had, were to add features like 'always on top' to all Windows. I don't need this under KDE.
Exchange
Look at Novell's solutions.
Sharepoint.Net
I haven't actually seen it used anywhere yet.
Xbox 360...etc.
Yeah, as if I'm going to play a subscription to play games that I've already bought, on hardware I already bought, on a internet connection I already paid for, on a server *I* am hosting. I prefer the Wii.
there is still a shamefully large number of applications that expect to be installed and/or run using an administrator account, and which barf if you try to do either while logged in as a non-admin.
I have found installing them into your "My Documents" folder (I have a "Programs" folder in My Documents for this), tends to solve these application issues.
My biggest annoyance though on 'limited user' accounts, was always having to create a control panel folder, and create a bunch of shortcuts that run 'control.exe something.cpl', with the 'run as a different user' option enabled in the shortcut properties. Software rarely gave me trouble.
If you're going to complain about how some hardware you bought that was built for windows, came preinstalled for Windows doesn't work immidately out of the box with Linux that's not a very fair comparison.
However, you should consider the fact that I have some hardware here that does not work well with vanilla Windows either (ie: laptop graphic cards -- no working drivers after XP SP1, wireless cards that have no drivers that work over XP sp1 etc).
This is from hardware that came with Windows XP preinstalled on the system. I have not seen such issues happen yet with systems designed to run Linux.
Hey Captain Straw Man! I was talking about doing a dozen or more transfers at once...even if your whole system doens't slow down, your rate of transfer will.
I haven't noticed, nor am I too worried, it's not like large transfers have ever taken over ten minutes.
So you bitch about how you have to use special Apple software to transfer files
I'm complaining that I have to use iTunes in particular rather than some standard application -- such as windows explorer
and then extoll special Linux software to transfer files?
A kioslave is not 'special Linux software', it's part of KDE. The media kioslave wasn't made to transfer music to the iPod, but to all sorts of media devices. A Kioslave in KDE is usable from Filepickers/file managers to even media players like Amarok.
Apple could have made their iPods compatible with transferring mp3s via just dropping it on the drive (iPods that run Linux certainly can). I shouldn't have to find workarounds or other BS.
My mention of Linux/KDE in particular issue was it's superiority to not having as many problems as OS X and Windows would in these situations, despite the fact certain companies don't seem to have a interest in making their hardware and software more compatible.
oh I see, you're just trying to repeat the FUD about Apple forcing its users (at gunpoint) to buy teh new OSs every month for $1299.9999!!!11 each time omg wtf!
The people who make Second Life remind me of the people who in school caused new and Draconian rules to be created by the administration which made life miserable for the rest of the students. The morons giving real life money for virtual real estate, the knuckle draggers who are doing basically MOO/MUSH objects then selling them for real money, and now the attempted use of the DMCA hammer on anything in their way.
Under the circumstances, I don't really feel Lindenlabs has put much of a Draconian rule over Second life. I find other communities are far more restricted than Second life is often.
i bet Microsoft wouldn't do that. they would be 100% honest with us
This is how Microsoft would probably report it:
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the Graphics Rendering Engine because of the way that it handles Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPG and JPEG) images. An attacker could exploit the vulnerability by constructing a specially crafted JPG image that could potentially allow remote code execution if a user visited a malicious Web site or opened a specially crafted attachment in e-mail. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system.
Say you get a new iPod and start going through your favorite bands and one-hit-wonders. With your "simple drag and drop" you either need to wait for each transfer to finish before you start the next one, or wait as your system slows to a crawl when do multiple transfers at the same time.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But my Linux installation never slowed down to a crawl over copying files to a external device -- that's just ludicrous.
Or you could use iTunes, which will add your drag and drops to a queue, so only one transfer occurs at a time and you don't have to babysit it.
I think the media kio slave in KDE already does this (queuing), but I can't confirm it actually does with the iPod, since I don't own one.
Yeah, I hate it when software helps me manage things instead of making me do them myself.
iTunes doesn't know what I want on the device. 'Ratings' don't help it either.
I never understood people wanting to manually handle their media files instead of using the assorted metadata that is alread associated with them.
I don't see the problem with supporting both options. Amarok certainly does supporting exporting music to portable devices with additional meta information -- same devices may also support just simple file copy operations, so it's the best of 'both worlds'.
just don't assume those of us that like something different are under some oppressive regime.
Strange, I didn't think was about 'likes', but rather the 'shittiness' of certain things.
Vanilla MP3s automatically sorted and updated via smart playlists using extensive metadata and copied to a slick little nano for me, and all in less clicks than it takes you to open your file manager.
iTunes takes much longer than my file manager (Konqueror -- Actually, it even takes longer than Amarok and iTunes has far LESS features!) to open, and add files to a mp3 device.
And the pacakge managers actually work on all apples without crazy crap like compat libs and driver patches that eat up time and money.
I use Linux on a daily basis and you've completely lost me.
Additionally, since mac is UNIX it's often not hard to get Linux software to compile on a mac.
Since you can't even copy-paste between X11 and Aqua apps in OS X... I don't really think Apple is a good choice to run Linux software on. The other thing is, Mac OS X is not UNIX.
It's running a hybrid kernel called XNU, which is based on Mach with a BSD subsystem. It has very poor support for things like POSIX signals. Getting *nix applications to compile on OS X is actually a big carry on. Xcode, Darwin tools so you can get the other developer libraries that are usually not upto date (fink doesn't do much better).
Linux applications don't usually just fit in with the Aqua UI either, it's probably better off to be using Linux to begin with.
(and because of fink all the useful libs are there).
You're talking as if this marvelous random issue you've come up with is a very common issue on Linux distros -- it isn't. I've not even encountered it with package managers like you make it appear is the case.
Virtuallizing windows or mac os on random PC hardware is often a time consuming and thus expensive chore with no assured path to compatibility.
What the hell would I want to run a virtualized OS X system for?
To run Microsoft Office without proper macro support?
To uh... Look pretty?
To run Mac version of software like, Photoshop? (even though we can run it under Windows already and run some versions just fine under crossover/wine for Linux if I wanted).
To have a OS to run virtualization? -- I think XNU is better suited for that...
You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 and it is a much better quality machine than the equivalent pricepoint pc.
Except you can't upgrade the graphics card (on PCs you can just add a PCIe card that will take over the onboard graphics), add more PCI cards, too few USB ports... Hell, add a extra harddrive...
It's just not expandable like most PCs are.
If you want to call hardware that can't be upgraded 'quality', go ahead, but in my eyes that's just cheap.
Mac OS X server does this easily, except you don't need Ghost, because you just boot the image over the network.
You can do this on Windows too.
And if you want to change the image, you just change it on the server and reboot the clients.
Can do this on Windows too
If you just want to install some new software on the clients, you set up a Network Install image and they auto-discover and auto-install it.
Windows domains have a centralized 'software installation' system that can be used todo this.
It's even better than SMS because building your own packages is not a pain in the ass.
Most corporate software already comes in.msi packages, so it's not really that big of a issue.
Mac OS X even supports roaming profiles for Windows (it's NT4, not AD, but it still works).
Most companies that use some sort of domain setup don't even have NT4 anymore anywhere. Changing a bunch of settings to make the network more insecure for 'NT4 support' is not a very good solution in my opinion.
It's much less work on Mac OS X. I suggest you actually get informed before saying things like "Macs would be somewhat workable if you had a SMALL network, I guess."
Feel free to suggest a workable scenario/solution of how you could replace this network infrastructure with OS X.
Don't forget to mention the benefits of such a system over the existing scenario I gave.
These services are extremely simple to set up and manage. In my opinion they are much easier to manage than Ghost and Active Directory or their equivalents on the Windows side of things.
OS X solutions are too limited for other reasons. Please consider this scenario:
Three servers run virtualization software (although usually only two is running a single OS at a time), which run one copy of Windows 2003 enterprise server, running as a primary domain controller for a windows 2003 active directory. Another is a backup domain controller, that's usually used when we need to reboot the first for updates. This virtualisation software does regular synchronisations to the other servers. Every now and then, we may need to take a server offline, switch the server being used. The virtaulisation software will just move the Windows installation onto another server, synchronize, bring it online without interupting anything (to the OS, it doesn't even realized it's been moved to another computer, continues handling the various server tasks it was doing in the middle of the move happily).
There is the file server cluster, consisting of Linux servers running Samba (all working together). The filesystem is replicated between each of these servers, there is a very dumb router that does process off-loading. A heartbeat system between the cluster is also setup -- so should any of the servers go down, we won't have to worry about the dumb off-loading system shoving connections to a dead server. To the network, these cluster of servers really just appear as one server.
Additionally these fileservers also ran some proxies for IIS, was faster to ship SMS updates and less intensive on the server that way.
The client workstations are setup to network boot and then boot from the harddrives. The reason for this, is if you wanted to reimage a computer for any reason, you just log into into the imaging server (We had a web interface to handle this -- The server just contains a bunch of pre-setup OS images, UFTP and the DHCP server for the network) and tell it that next time it receives a DHCP request from computer X (we had the Mac addresses aliased for each computer) to run a small linux installation off the network and automatically image said computer with whatever image we wanted -- it takes on average seven minutes to image a entire computer.
The client computers mostly used a Windows (some ran Linux -- but that's another story) with roaming profiles, thanks to our clustering system and Linux in particular, roaming profiles was insanely fast (much faster than running it off windows we found).
We never had to worry about upgrading the master domain controller's hardware or downtime thanks to virtualisation. Hardware issue? Just move the virtualized guest OS to another server, and fix it, or replace with entirely new hardware.
Some update botched up the windows server installation somehow? Just roll back the harddrive image that contained the OS installation (domain data was kept on another virtualized harddrive).
All the Windows clients were managed pretty much by group policies set on the domain controller. Admittedly, some software installations weren't always just adding it to a list of software to be installed, as some software didn't come in a MSI container/package.
I have a very hard time visualizing in my head putting such a 'nice' setup together with just OS X. Especially on a network that cannot afford to have *ANY* downtime.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is symptomatic of the inherent byzantine shittiness of making things work with Windows.
Yeah... Who would of expected a mp3 player to not support simple drag and drop operations onto it's drive so you can copy your music and listen to it on said device...
I mean it's not like other mp3 players don't support thi.. Oh wait.
If there's one thing worse than letting users design software it's letting programmers do it.
I disagree. Programmers are more likely to follow UI guidelines and design conventions, most users aren't.
Whilst users may not always know what they want
They want [program name], nothing else. Many 'average' users I've worked with, had lacked the imagination to even visualize what sort of UI they wanted to work with. Giving them choices didn't help either. They could use the UIs, but couldn't tell me what they liked/disliked or anything.
they have a damn sight better idea than code monkeys
See above.
many of whom seem to have a pathological hatred of those who might actually use and consequently criticise their product.
I'm always open to suggestions.
Look at this way: you wouldn't ask a bricklayer or a plumber to design your house, would you?
I wouldn't let most architects design my house either. But that's another story.
And boy did it show - I had a UNIX account on NJ Superlink at the time. Whenever I telnetted to check my e-mail (t.g. for cybercafe), a keystroke would echo back to me with a lag time of 2-3 sec.
Not the case in Szczecin or Warszawa back then...
The exchange itself wasn't automatic - you'd pick up the phone and give the number you wanted to the operator, who'd connect you (or call you back after 5 min. if you wanted long distance).
When I moved to Poland, back in 1994 I think, it was all automatic (dial a number on the phone, it would connect you).
Slashdot Mirror
- I do not care about quantity, I care about quality
- There is only one Windows game (Freelancer) that I care about that doesn't run under Wine yet
- Most of the applications on windows I had, were to add features like 'always on top' to all Windows. I don't need this under KDE.
Look at Novell's solutions.I haven't actually seen it used anywhere yet.Yeah, as if I'm going to play a subscription to play games that I've already bought, on hardware I already bought, on a internet connection I already paid for, on a server *I* am hosting. I prefer the Wii.My biggest annoyance though on 'limited user' accounts, was always having to create a control panel folder, and create a bunch of shortcuts that run 'control.exe something.cpl', with the 'run as a different user' option enabled in the shortcut properties. Software rarely gave me trouble.
If you're going to complain about how some hardware you bought that was built for windows, came preinstalled for Windows doesn't work immidately out of the box with Linux that's not a very fair comparison.
However, you should consider the fact that I have some hardware here that does not work well with vanilla Windows either (ie: laptop graphic cards -- no working drivers after XP SP1, wireless cards that have no drivers that work over XP sp1 etc).
This is from hardware that came with Windows XP preinstalled on the system. I have not seen such issues happen yet with systems designed to run Linux.
I'm complaining that I have to use iTunes in particular rather than some standard application -- such as windows explorerA kioslave is not 'special Linux software', it's part of KDE. The media kioslave wasn't made to transfer music to the iPod, but to all sorts of media devices. A Kioslave in KDE is usable from Filepickers/file managers to even media players like Amarok.
Apple could have made their iPods compatible with transferring mp3s via just dropping it on the drive (iPods that run Linux certainly can). I shouldn't have to find workarounds or other BS.
My mention of Linux/KDE in particular issue was it's superiority to not having as many problems as OS X and Windows would in these situations, despite the fact certain companies don't seem to have a interest in making their hardware and software more compatible.
Looking at some Google results, it does actually look like there is pokemon, yugiyo, mario porn in the first place.
Perhaps the problem is that some adults are getting sexual fetishes for children's stuff?
Let's not forget that you will probably need to get a OS upgrade to get it ontop of that.
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the Graphics Rendering Engine because of the way that it handles Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPG and JPEG) images. An attacker could exploit the vulnerability by constructing a specially crafted JPG image that could potentially allow remote code execution if a user visited a malicious Web site or opened a specially crafted attachment in e-mail. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system.
It's running a hybrid kernel called XNU, which is based on Mach with a BSD subsystem. It has very poor support for things like POSIX signals. Getting *nix applications to compile on OS X is actually a big carry on. Xcode, Darwin tools so you can get the other developer libraries that are usually not upto date (fink doesn't do much better).
Linux applications don't usually just fit in with the Aqua UI either, it's probably better off to be using Linux to begin with.
You're talking as if this marvelous random issue you've come up with is a very common issue on Linux distros -- it isn't. I've not even encountered it with package managers like you make it appear is the case.
What the hell would I want to run a virtualized OS X system for?
To run Microsoft Office without proper macro support?
To uh... Look pretty?
To run Mac version of software like, Photoshop? (even though we can run it under Windows already and run some versions just fine under crossover/wine for Linux if I wanted).
To have a OS to run virtualization? -- I think XNU is better suited for that...
Sorry, the reasoning eludes me.
It's just not expandable like most PCs are.
If you want to call hardware that can't be upgraded 'quality', go ahead, but in my eyes that's just cheap.
Feel free to suggest a workable scenario/solution of how you could replace this network infrastructure with OS X.
Don't forget to mention the benefits of such a system over the existing scenario I gave.
Three servers run virtualization software (although usually only two is running a single OS at a time), which run one copy of Windows 2003 enterprise server, running as a primary domain controller for a windows 2003 active directory. Another is a backup domain controller, that's usually used when we need to reboot the first for updates. This virtualisation software does regular synchronisations to the other servers. Every now and then, we may need to take a server offline, switch the server being used. The virtaulisation software will just move the Windows installation onto another server, synchronize, bring it online without interupting anything (to the OS, it doesn't even realized it's been moved to another computer, continues handling the various server tasks it was doing in the middle of the move happily).
There is the file server cluster, consisting of Linux servers running Samba (all working together). The filesystem is replicated between each of these servers, there is a very dumb router that does process off-loading. A heartbeat system between the cluster is also setup -- so should any of the servers go down, we won't have to worry about the dumb off-loading system shoving connections to a dead server. To the network, these cluster of servers really just appear as one server.
Additionally these fileservers also ran some proxies for IIS, was faster to ship SMS updates and less intensive on the server that way.
The client workstations are setup to network boot and then boot from the harddrives. The reason for this, is if you wanted to reimage a computer for any reason, you just log into into the imaging server (We had a web interface to handle this -- The server just contains a bunch of pre-setup OS images, UFTP and the DHCP server for the network) and tell it that next time it receives a DHCP request from computer X (we had the Mac addresses aliased for each computer) to run a small linux installation off the network and automatically image said computer with whatever image we wanted -- it takes on average seven minutes to image a entire computer.
The client computers mostly used a Windows (some ran Linux -- but that's another story) with roaming profiles, thanks to our clustering system and Linux in particular, roaming profiles was insanely fast (much faster than running it off windows we found).
We never had to worry about upgrading the master domain controller's hardware or downtime thanks to virtualisation. Hardware issue? Just move the virtualized guest OS to another server, and fix it, or replace with entirely new hardware.
Some update botched up the windows server installation somehow? Just roll back the harddrive image that contained the OS installation (domain data was kept on another virtualized harddrive).
All the Windows clients were managed pretty much by group policies set on the domain controller. Admittedly, some software installations weren't always just adding it to a list of software to be installed, as some software didn't come in a MSI container/package.
I have a very hard time visualizing in my head putting such a 'nice' setup together with just OS X. Especially on a network that cannot afford to have *ANY* downtime.
I mean it's not like other mp3 players don't support thi.. Oh wait.
Let's just keep to the standard, don't need more confusion.