Okay, I said Microsoft was consistent and so is every other Linux distro out there but its broken in OS X for some reason.
With that said I call bullshit on self healing in regards to both Linux and OS X. I have broken PPDs in OS X and don't get me started on custom configuratons + apt-gets. Pull your head out of your ass, this is an issue with every OS that performs any measure of services. Why do you think IBM is focusing on self-healing Linux? Why do you think Cisco is focusing on self-healing the network? It's a common problem and everyone is addressing it. Microsoft is too surprise surprise.
I'll suggest you try Vista before stating that the changes are nearly as superficial as you seem to claim. I've done deployments of it using SMS and I can state with 100% certainty that there are indeed a very large number of changes under the hood. I've already stated a good number of them so I won't bother to repeat myself.
After using Vista for the last month or so I have greatly enjoyed the experience. If software installs itself incorrectly Vista lets you know and you have the option of fixing it or running in compatibility mode. Lot of visual stuff needs to be tweaked but from what I hear about colleagues performing test deploys this is largely due to the beta Nvidia drivers I was using.
There is no mystery to Vista like you seem to think there is. The OS is out there and available to use. It IS that different no matter how much you think it isn't.
As for the then some I'm referring to Media Center which is an application unlike anything I've ever seen for OS X. Not saying similar software doesn't exist for the OS but it certainly doesn't come from Apple. This is ironic since its the very first item I mentioned and you chose not to recognize it. That's fine.
As for six years ago Microsoft started the trend to a more secure foundation and a drastic change in philosophy. Yes, it took a long time to develop steam but it did happen and it takes large companies a long time to change their stride.
You're statements conflict with each-other. First there is the "Longhorn Reset" meaning Vista has been developed over the last two years which is still a lot of development time and then you say its using an old code base? Which is it? It seems to me like everyone looks at the interface to Vista and says okay, it looks like OS X and then assume nothing has changed on the back end. It smacks of pure ignorance, you need to actually try the product before you start bashing it. It is quite obvious that you have only read about it. Most of the features existed in XP that OS X had and XP still interoperates with other networks a hell of a lot better than a standard OS X rig. NFS and SMB are both terrible on OS X but SMB at least has been consistently reliable on Windows and with Vista of course NFS also works great.
Now, did I mention the Aero interface at all in my post? Did you see me mention anything about the interface at all? Is your point so weak you can't even refer to my post? Do you even realize that Aero has a negligable performance impact on a computer? Do you even care that the OS does self diagnostic and self optimization? How about real working self healing? How about granular reporting out of the box? All stuff OS X or any modern Linunx distro does not do. All this stuff is possible on other platforms but it never comes from one source. You're argument should be about that being right or wrong rather than attacking what you clearly have no understanding of.
I'm not excusing anything, I'm actually using the product that is being bashed. I'm listing all features which are currently in the OS and working so yes, right this very second Vista is free available for anyone to use.
Quit spreading fud and focus on making alternatives better. Haven't seen a perfect distro yet. How many exploits are available for Enterprise Linux systems? According to my Novell update notification at least once a month. So what's your point? I'll go out on a limb and say Vista isn't 100% secure, but no OS which has any useful services ever is. The point is, are there safeguards in the OS which prevent zero-day exploits? In Vista, hell yes, the new firewall actually is a firewall and application ACLs allow for shitty software to run in a sandbox. It's all pretty effective and you might want to try it before you judge it.
How about Media Center, DVD Maker? You know, all the iTools from the Apple world and then some.
Regardless of what you seem to think the underlying security model for Vista is drastically different. How about application ACLs? How about 100% policy driven customization? What about the new indexing features? What about the memory management? How about bitlocker? How about a new stack and a completely new firewall which might actually remove the need for a 3rd party firewall. Sure, you can add most of this stuff into XP but it won't all be neatly packaged and more importantly neatly monitored and reported.
As for the DVD its 3.4gigs which already shows you haven't even actually checked out a freely available OS. Furthermore that 3.4gigs includes 6 different versions of Vista which have varying applications from low-end home use to the Ultimate edition which has everything. I hate the naming and I hate the complexity with all the versions but its not nearly what you think it is.
Make no mistake, this is a huge change, at least as big as the change from Windows 3.1 to 95. It's more than 6 years in the making. Are you really that blinded by hatred of Microsoft that you think 6 years and thousands of programmers have accomplished nothing?
I do find this most humorous and you are completely correct. I've seen people talking about Spotlight and HFS+ not realizing the two actually have nothing in common.
I think the major issue here is the fact that modern content management systems already handle this behavior and storage is being centralized. Why have ten computers in your house with 300gigs of storage in each when you can just have a backed file server in the closet running a CMS? In the corporate world this works great but I think MS wanted to extend it to the consumer world and then realized it just doesn't make sense. WinFS works but I think they realized the scaled back version already in Vista will suit the needs of the consumer world and the already shipping CMS's from Microsoft as well as several other competitors gets the job done. Just doesn't make sense to add it in.
In any case it was probably a good move since you already have the metadata abilities in XP and extended abilities in Vista. Fun stuff watching all the ignorant posts. It's funny how everytime MS releases an OS every says it sucks, then it comes out and everyone rolls over to it and then its good. I remember that when XP came out, all the people saying they were sticking with Windows 2000 then realized their hardware ran faster on XP. Same with Vista as my experience with the beta has showed me. It's amazing, they are offering it for free and their are still people out their spreading fud.
I've seen Microsoft's corporate network infrastructure, I've seen the Microsoft Operations Manager console for the place and I can tell you they do indeed use their own stuff. That's not to say don't use other manufacturers products as well but thats to be expected considering everyone bashes them for not interoperating. Then of course they make a move to create an internal environment which fosters this philosophy and they get flamed for it.
Their web presence is a different story. Then again, who uses the same stuff to serve their website as they do their internal corporate services? Apache outside is pretty damned common while in-house Intranets run on IIS. It's faster to develop for, easier to deploy, makes good sense.
Exchange is another example, how many people use Exchange directly on the Internet? How many people use Sendmail or Postfix outside forwarding to Exchange inside? A lot!
Most humorous statement given the history of the christian religion. Let the stoning begin! Seriously, just because you're christian doesn't mean you give up the right to form your own opinions without being a labeled a hypocrite. It's not hypocritical because the church is not the voice of a priest or even a Pope. Over time their opinions change because people challenge common accepted ideas.
With that said I think a lot of people completely misunderstand exactly what an embryo is. It's a pile of goo and a small one at that. This pile of goo looks exactly the same whether its a deer, mouse, dog, or human. Why whould this be destroyed rather than put to scientific use? It's completely asinine to waste such an opportunity. The source will exist whether you like it not, so the question is then only what you should to do with the result. The embryo will never turn into a fetus which is when it starts to look like a wee baby. Of course that takes quite a while.
I guess I'll never understand this logic that we should throw away something instead of put it to use.
Yeah, everyone was smarter back before TV and there was no such thing as thalidomide babies and lake Michigan never caught on fire. They also fought their wars like men standing in a line and marching toward the enemy firing their weapons taking the hits.
Regardless of what you think about TV/Radio stupid people have always existed and always done stupid things. People today are generally smarter than the times before tv. Look at the number of people who can read today versus the number who could read in the 1950's.
Of course you never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd of people. Even the smartest of people can turn into complete idiots when you put them into a crowd and that's largely regardless of the intelligence of the crowd.
With all that said, sneaking is trying to attach an ammendent to a bill which has nothing to do with the bill in the hopes it will get passed because people actually read the bill to begin with. Some representatives are apparently doing their jobs, or at least their aids are. Look at the PATRIOT Act and the number of legislators that never even read the thing much less describe how it affects us to this day.
I too don't give a fuck if I can tivo CSI, I don't get that wrapped up in TV although I sure as hell want to retain my freedoms so in the future if I do care I'll be able to.
The parent to my post replied with the answer to this. Today 1/3rd of new Windows machines are pirated. That means the majority of the growth is not pirated. There is nothing to reconcile, piracy in this day is not what it was back in 95. For whatever reason more people are buying. I don't know too many people switching to Linux because Windows is too expensive. The few times I've converted our servers to Linux its been because we didn't have a Windows license and it was easy to find a distribution fit for that function without a lot of effort.
That said, how many people pirated an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP? I'll guesstimate not many. Most people leave the old operating system on the computer until the computer dies and then they buy a new one with the latest OS. That's why we still have so many 98/2k machines out there.
I'd argue that there isn't a ton of piracy except among technical circles which know that you can run alternate operating systems.
Perfectly valid points and I think they only support my claim that Vista won't drive more people to Linux in greater numbers. I think the success of Linux depends on its continued development and increases usage. As more people use it the more they tell their friends and so on and so forth. It'll grow slow but its like any type of small business. You start out doing small amounts of business and as you grow you take on proportionally more and more.
I think Linux will only become more and more influential as time goes by, but I don't think the success of Vista will be influenced in and measureable way by Linux. I think Linux growth is purely momentum but people need to keep in mind that Microsoft also has a lot of momentum and their products are becoming more and more complete in the corporate world which will only make it harder for Linux. I think its the corporate world Microsoft wants to keep and anything else is just gravy.
Most of the corporate improvements they've made to their products don't really help the home user but of course a lot of things that help business do ultimately affect home users so in the end everyone will be more satisfied with Windows. This is to be expected though, people weren't satisfied with Oracle 7 which is why we have Oracle 10g now. Linux will continue to improve so for now its pick the right product for the platform, neither of them are perfect which is why email blasts are done using Debian and sendmail while calendaring and collaboration are done with Exchange/Sharepoint.
At any rate, I don't doubt that Windows will continue to be pirated in the future but Microsoft could be a lot more restrictive given the tools that they already have in place. The BSA are at least as bad as the RIAA/MPAA. In either case I find it a rare case that people go with Linux because its free. There are instances but usually its because it does what they need it to do and won't get bogged down trying to do other things like a Windows box can.
Good luck with that since the vast vast majority of Vista sales will be through new computer purchases. I don't think it will be a catalyst for anything despite all the hype in either direction.
If Microsoft didn't already have that market share you'd have a point but since the market is there's they no longer depend on piracy. Furthermore when they come across businesses pirating they always gives them the option to license properly before suing them. I'm not sure the number of times MS has ever sued a company for such practices. I know they would be targeting system builders selling pirated copies of Windows as authentic but MS recognizes that this happens which is why someone that falls victim to this get's Windows for $1 if report the company.
I'd say for the most part Microsof still looks away to this day. There token voice has just gotten a little louder in the last couple years.
Or the parent was being sarcastic saying that Linus isn't involved in most of the Linux world. He only works on the kernel afterall. So the feedback isn't there or maybe we're all just shills of our own bias.
This will prevent me from acting like an asshole in the future. Unless of course I wasn't an asshole and you're responding to my response to an attack based on this post. I'll leave that up to you since you seem to have all the answers.
Your statements put you beyond reason so this is probably pointless but in case I'm wrong I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and reply thinking there might be someone there capable of rational thought. I'll address a few points and the first is that the Samsung A900 on powersave is at most as bright as a Timex watch, probably much less so. I used to use my watch as a flashlight in dark closets.I can't even do that with my A900 on powersave. In fact, most phones I've seen these days, the razr, the nokias all have dimmer screens and of course since the beginning they have all allowed you to adjust the brightness.
Now feel free to go and read the dozen other posts I already responded to and see if you feel the same way. To be honest I don't care. Anyone that jumps to your conclusions based on nothing with abundant evidence around them is beyond reason, beyond rational and hardly worth my time. However since it's directed at me I will respond and I will respond in kind. Attack me and I'll fight back. It's plain and simple, if that makes me an asshole, then I'm an asshole I don't care. Approach determines response and that is how it shall always be.
Feel free to flame away with incredible lack of understanding of the difference between a symptom of cell phone abuse and a problem of rude behavior in public. Being away from a land line isn't a problem, being away from the network is. I'm not going to live in the NOC anymore than anyone else will.
Public forums are about public debate, flamewars accomplish nothing which is why my first post merely suggested an alternative to zero policy. Let your anonymity protect you as it does me. I would have had the same discussion in real life only there I wouldn't have had to write the same thing in ten different places only to have someone fling a don't describe your own attitudes comment at me. haha, at this point its beyond sad its actually starting to become funny.
I'll add just one more thing, the parent suggested the lighting up of a cell phone was the disruptive behavior so the lighting up of a watch is a logical addition to this argument since people do it all the time and no one cares.
You're response is even more humorous since you don't seem to understand the difference between a symptom such as a headache and a problem such as high blood pressure. Treating the headache won't fix the high blood pressure.
You're logical fallacy here is quite amusing since I was referring to a low-tech and cheap way to solve the problem without resorting to zero tolerance which has always worked so well in the past. I don't ignore tech that inconveniences me because honestly if I'm going to a movie there is very little chance I'll be contacted. It's not about what does happen its about what can happen and there are people who need to be contacted as soon as possible and those people cannot seriously be told to have to stay home 24/7/365 because some people in the theater don't want that 13 year old girl answering her phone during a movie. It's utterly ridiculous and from my experience the vast vast majority of people do set their phones to vibrate. Think about the number of times you're in a theater and here a phone go off. Is it 50 different people? Hell no, its one or two on bad days. That means you have 2 assholes in a room with 100 people or even more. Sorry but the answer is not to ban cell phones alltogether just because some people don't get it. It makes no sense, why not ban all cars, alcohol, guns? They all have people that misuse them but the vast majority of their users do not.
That is my statement and if you find it amusing thats fine. I meant exactly what I said. Treating the symptom of rude behavior won't fix rude behavior. The people that can't talk on phones will then talk to other people in the theater.
Thanks for mentioning my treatment, you too seem much more reasonable on the issue and bring up a lot of good points. I see this whole issue as a common trend and I do not blame cell phones for this trend. People in general are more anonymous these days, they can hold a private conversation in a public place essentially meaning they aren't required to interact with their surroundings to the same level. I have no idea the number of accidents caused by cell phone use and I do believe firemen do stay at the firehouse assuming your in a city which has professional firefighters. I know the town I grew up in was 100% volunteer. The pager goes off and they run out the door. It works well for them.
A common problem with technology is figuring out what to do with it. Obviously cell phones are new to our culture and so our culture needs time to adapt. Think about the times when you couldn't even say the word pregnancy over the phone. Times have changed obviously and now people talk about whatever they like. You need people confronting them when they are doing it at inappropriate times much like when a kid learns to fight. Shouldn't teach him not to fight and shouldn't teach him to always fight, but there is a time and a place and you get punished for doing it at an inappropriate time. There are plenty of examples but when it comes to this I just think zero tolerance is a bad idea. I think zero tolerance is just a bad idea alltogether though.
You are correct that cell phones are often a crutch for bad policy. For instance in my world I'm on call 24/7. If they hired another guy to do my job the two of us could share this responsibility and then this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Of course that's not my reality whether cell phones exist or not. So I'll counter your argument saying that cell phones don't make people more rude, people are just more rude in general. There are less physical consequences these days and I think thats why. 50 years ago someone acting inappropriately getting slugged would result in effectively letting someone know they were acting inappropriately. Today if you do that you could end up in jail or in a civil suit. People in general are afraid to step up because they don't understand the consequences that may or may not happen.
Sorry I like to jump around a bit but referring to the problem not being around before 2000; there have always been rude people in theaters, throwing popcorn, talking to the people around them, laughing obnoxiously, anything you can think of really. Now most of the time I see people in their seats and on a bad day you'll hear a cell phone go off followed by intense hatred beams of energy from the rest of the audience. I think people are starting to get the picture. Two years ago it was a much larger issue I think. Every experience I've had in the last year has been a great one. Anecdotal though so I could be way off base.
P.S. I figured out the paragraph tag problem. They want every paragraph to be enclosed instead of alternating like I used to.
I recognize your point and I had a similar experience as a child. The point was that it wasn't as easy to get a hold of the parents. I think proper etiquette definitely needs to be observed. This is another price you pay for the pivilege of using a cell phone in addition to the money that is paid. Kind of like how buying a car doesn't give you the right to run people off the road.
Fortunately for us, we lived in a small town where word spread through the town in a matter of hours but thats not as easy in more populated areas. No question, a cell phone is much more affective so the question is what to do about the people that will abuse this technology? There are always people that will find a way to abuse anything.
Perfectly valid response to my comment and even a bit insightful. Way to go, much better than most of the other posts in this thread.
You are right that there is an overreliance on staying connected but the whole point isn't the number of times you've heard it. It's the possibility that it could occur. All of these people I'm sure go to theaters and I'm fairly certain most of them don't have an issue with this. The whole point is that someone spouting off on a cell phone in a theater is not a problem but a cultural change that needs to occur.
Face it, 20 years ago there were a lot of fires that took a lot longer to get to and a lot more medical misshaps. Cell phones are a part of our culture now so we might as well deal with the underlying issue of rude behavior in a theater rather than treat the one symptom of the issue. She's shouting then take her phone away, better yet, have an usher take it away and if she wants it she can go outside to use it. Seems really easy? Makes sense doesn't it? It's logical? Why do we need to employee new technology to prevent or actively jam this new technology? It's quite an ironic stance especially here on Slashdot when everyday there is talk about the RIAA and MPAA smashing new technology to hold on to old practices. Keep in mind, I'm not calling you a hypocrite since I don't know your stance on said issue. Just a general trend I'm noticing on here on this day.
Back to topic; the world didn't get along well without cell phones. It's kind of like saying we all did fine living in small farming communities. As for anecdotal evidence I have seen someone get a phone call and then rush out of the theater. Means nothing, its all about the possibilities and the risks not being worth the price.
I make no assumptions about you, you are perfectly civil and from the impression I get willing to engage in a debate which was all I was attempting to do as well. Of course I could be wrong but its simply amazing the response I get to suggesting a theater use ushers instead of technology to solve a problem. It's like people think that I don't have a problem with someone talking on their cell phone in a theater or at a doctors office or at the dinner table. There is common etiquette many people subscribe to and it only takes one person that doesn't to ruin it for the rest of us. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me but that is perhaps because it would personally affect me.
I never suggested such behavior was polite nor was I suggesting you do it right there. Getting up from a theater is common practice. You feel your pocket vibrate then you can excuse yourself and go perform whatever task. Also, my screen is dim by default. I turn on the backlight if and when I need it and this has never happened in a theater. So kindly take your opinion about me and shove it up your ass. You'r making assumptions about me and you do not know me, nor have you ever been in a theater with me.
Furthermore if a dim little light as bright as someone looking at their watch to see what time it is bothers you in a theater well guess what? You're way the hell too sensitive to be there in the first place. Are you saying people can't check the time now? Do you seriously see what you're saying? I have no problem with someone opening their cell phone to look at it regardless since I'm doing something crazy like looking at the screen in front of me. It already lights up the audience.
So you've clearly put on an impressive display of ignorance about me without even bothering to address the actual topic. Congratulations, may all your posts be as productive. So please, kindly refrain from making any further assumptions as they only serve to further illustrate your ignorance of me and my behavior. I'm the guy that says something when someone is being disruptive so that the rest of us can enjoy the rest of the movie. It's really easy, almost as easy as turning the brightness down on a cell phone.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Treating a symptom with technology will not fix the problem. If you don't like the possibility that one in 100 people will open their phone then go to a smaller theater where it is less likely to happen. Get a big enough crowd and there will always be at least one asshole, even if it is me.
haha, most humorous, taking the phone is not a bad idea for repeat offenders but for liability reasons it should be an employee of the establishment which performs this task.
I think most people just forget they have their cell phones so when it rings they turn it off or on vibrate. Of course there are always the SOBs that just don't care and for them? Your violent solution would probably be the best option. Again best performed by employees.
In all seriousness though bouncers at bars can get rough with patrons that get out of control so why can't ushers at theaters? If the person won't respond to reason there needs to be something to back it up.
It's a pointless debate since none of it is required. Are you telling me your parrents never said we're going to this place for dinner and then decided they wanted something else on the way? Why limit them when technology makes it completely unncessary?
I'm sure you never had to go to the hospital because you've hit your head on the coffee table and its bleeding profusely while your parents were going to a movie. It happened to my parents when I was a kid. They came home to find not only me missing, but my two older sisters as well. Of course the babysitter left a note but there is very disconcerting for a parent. I'm not a parent myself but I do empathize with people thay would be affected by actively blocking cell phones. As I keep saying, the usher/bouncer approach is far more ideal as it treats the problem by directly speaking to the disruptive people. Of course they are going to need to be a little more intimidating than your average teenage kid but those are logistics issues to be dealt with after people start to agree that technology will not fix the problem because its only treating an individual symptom of that problem. Cure my headache with advil but then I die from dehydration. If you don't fix the problem it just shows up in other ways. Overly dramatic I know but the point is valid.
And a perfectly fine solution for me. There are people out there without that luxury however. Also, what if I decided to go to dinner before the movies? Now I have to give them the numbers of all my favorite restaurants too? What if I choose to go to a different theater because its more convenient for another friend? Seems like I'm being punished for a problem I did not contribute to.
I tend to think another simple, cheap, and effective solution is to just have the ushers walk around the theaters and ask people to leave if they are caught on their cell phone. No more passive-aggressive behavior. Can't treat the symptom to a problem and expect the problem to go away. People can't use their cell phones and just like 10 years ago they will be talking to the people around them. There are always disruptive people especially when you're talking about crowds the size of most theaters these days.
I know plenty of restaurants that require you to set your cell phone to vibrate. Seems like a much simpler and cost effective solution to me. I've had similar experience in theaters as well. I think most people are getting the idea these days and of course, there will always be the people about that just don't care. Take away their cell phones and they'll really start disturbing the audience. It's like most people don't remember what theaters were like before cell phones. Amazing really.
The usher/bouncer idea I think works best in both places. You pay a guy that goes around and looks for the disruptive people and has them leave. Before long people will get the idea and the disruptive people will be getting drunk and be loud someplace else while the people that want to enjoy it can do so in peace. Of course a lot of it I think is some people are just too sensitive.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I said Microsoft was consistent and so is every other Linux distro out there but its broken in OS X for some reason.
With that said I call bullshit on self healing in regards to both Linux and OS X. I have broken PPDs in OS X and don't get me started on custom configuratons + apt-gets. Pull your head out of your ass, this is an issue with every OS that performs any measure of services. Why do you think IBM is focusing on self-healing Linux? Why do you think Cisco is focusing on self-healing the network? It's a common problem and everyone is addressing it. Microsoft is too surprise surprise.
I'll suggest you try Vista before stating that the changes are nearly as superficial as you seem to claim. I've done deployments of it using SMS and I can state with 100% certainty that there are indeed a very large number of changes under the hood. I've already stated a good number of them so I won't bother to repeat myself.
That is a fine point that I neglected to mention.
After using Vista for the last month or so I have greatly enjoyed the experience. If software installs itself incorrectly Vista lets you know and you have the option of fixing it or running in compatibility mode. Lot of visual stuff needs to be tweaked but from what I hear about colleagues performing test deploys this is largely due to the beta Nvidia drivers I was using.
There is no mystery to Vista like you seem to think there is. The OS is out there and available to use. It IS that different no matter how much you think it isn't.
As for the then some I'm referring to Media Center which is an application unlike anything I've ever seen for OS X. Not saying similar software doesn't exist for the OS but it certainly doesn't come from Apple. This is ironic since its the very first item I mentioned and you chose not to recognize it. That's fine.
As for six years ago Microsoft started the trend to a more secure foundation and a drastic change in philosophy. Yes, it took a long time to develop steam but it did happen and it takes large companies a long time to change their stride.
You're statements conflict with each-other. First there is the "Longhorn Reset" meaning Vista has been developed over the last two years which is still a lot of development time and then you say its using an old code base? Which is it? It seems to me like everyone looks at the interface to Vista and says okay, it looks like OS X and then assume nothing has changed on the back end. It smacks of pure ignorance, you need to actually try the product before you start bashing it. It is quite obvious that you have only read about it. Most of the features existed in XP that OS X had and XP still interoperates with other networks a hell of a lot better than a standard OS X rig. NFS and SMB are both terrible on OS X but SMB at least has been consistently reliable on Windows and with Vista of course NFS also works great.
Now, did I mention the Aero interface at all in my post? Did you see me mention anything about the interface at all? Is your point so weak you can't even refer to my post? Do you even realize that Aero has a negligable performance impact on a computer? Do you even care that the OS does self diagnostic and self optimization? How about real working self healing? How about granular reporting out of the box? All stuff OS X or any modern Linunx distro does not do. All this stuff is possible on other platforms but it never comes from one source. You're argument should be about that being right or wrong rather than attacking what you clearly have no understanding of.
I'm not excusing anything, I'm actually using the product that is being bashed. I'm listing all features which are currently in the OS and working so yes, right this very second Vista is free available for anyone to use.
Quit spreading fud and focus on making alternatives better. Haven't seen a perfect distro yet. How many exploits are available for Enterprise Linux systems? According to my Novell update notification at least once a month. So what's your point? I'll go out on a limb and say Vista isn't 100% secure, but no OS which has any useful services ever is. The point is, are there safeguards in the OS which prevent zero-day exploits? In Vista, hell yes, the new firewall actually is a firewall and application ACLs allow for shitty software to run in a sandbox. It's all pretty effective and you might want to try it before you judge it.
How about Media Center, DVD Maker? You know, all the iTools from the Apple world and then some.
Regardless of what you seem to think the underlying security model for Vista is drastically different. How about application ACLs? How about 100% policy driven customization? What about the new indexing features? What about the memory management? How about bitlocker? How about a new stack and a completely new firewall which might actually remove the need for a 3rd party firewall. Sure, you can add most of this stuff into XP but it won't all be neatly packaged and more importantly neatly monitored and reported.
As for the DVD its 3.4gigs which already shows you haven't even actually checked out a freely available OS. Furthermore that 3.4gigs includes 6 different versions of Vista which have varying applications from low-end home use to the Ultimate edition which has everything. I hate the naming and I hate the complexity with all the versions but its not nearly what you think it is.
Make no mistake, this is a huge change, at least as big as the change from Windows 3.1 to 95. It's more than 6 years in the making. Are you really that blinded by hatred of Microsoft that you think 6 years and thousands of programmers have accomplished nothing?
I do find this most humorous and you are completely correct. I've seen people talking about Spotlight and HFS+ not realizing the two actually have nothing in common.
I think the major issue here is the fact that modern content management systems already handle this behavior and storage is being centralized. Why have ten computers in your house with 300gigs of storage in each when you can just have a backed file server in the closet running a CMS? In the corporate world this works great but I think MS wanted to extend it to the consumer world and then realized it just doesn't make sense. WinFS works but I think they realized the scaled back version already in Vista will suit the needs of the consumer world and the already shipping CMS's from Microsoft as well as several other competitors gets the job done. Just doesn't make sense to add it in.
In any case it was probably a good move since you already have the metadata abilities in XP and extended abilities in Vista. Fun stuff watching all the ignorant posts. It's funny how everytime MS releases an OS every says it sucks, then it comes out and everyone rolls over to it and then its good. I remember that when XP came out, all the people saying they were sticking with Windows 2000 then realized their hardware ran faster on XP. Same with Vista as my experience with the beta has showed me. It's amazing, they are offering it for free and their are still people out their spreading fud.
I've seen Microsoft's corporate network infrastructure, I've seen the Microsoft Operations Manager console for the place and I can tell you they do indeed use their own stuff. That's not to say don't use other manufacturers products as well but thats to be expected considering everyone bashes them for not interoperating. Then of course they make a move to create an internal environment which fosters this philosophy and they get flamed for it.
Their web presence is a different story. Then again, who uses the same stuff to serve their website as they do their internal corporate services? Apache outside is pretty damned common while in-house Intranets run on IIS. It's faster to develop for, easier to deploy, makes good sense.
Exchange is another example, how many people use Exchange directly on the Internet? How many people use Sendmail or Postfix outside forwarding to Exchange inside? A lot!
Most humorous statement given the history of the christian religion. Let the stoning begin! Seriously, just because you're christian doesn't mean you give up the right to form your own opinions without being a labeled a hypocrite. It's not hypocritical because the church is not the voice of a priest or even a Pope. Over time their opinions change because people challenge common accepted ideas.
With that said I think a lot of people completely misunderstand exactly what an embryo is. It's a pile of goo and a small one at that. This pile of goo looks exactly the same whether its a deer, mouse, dog, or human. Why whould this be destroyed rather than put to scientific use? It's completely asinine to waste such an opportunity. The source will exist whether you like it not, so the question is then only what you should to do with the result. The embryo will never turn into a fetus which is when it starts to look like a wee baby. Of course that takes quite a while.
I guess I'll never understand this logic that we should throw away something instead of put it to use.
Yeah, everyone was smarter back before TV and there was no such thing as thalidomide babies and lake Michigan never caught on fire. They also fought their wars like men standing in a line and marching toward the enemy firing their weapons taking the hits.
Regardless of what you think about TV/Radio stupid people have always existed and always done stupid things. People today are generally smarter than the times before tv. Look at the number of people who can read today versus the number who could read in the 1950's.
Of course you never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd of people. Even the smartest of people can turn into complete idiots when you put them into a crowd and that's largely regardless of the intelligence of the crowd.
With all that said, sneaking is trying to attach an ammendent to a bill which has nothing to do with the bill in the hopes it will get passed because people actually read the bill to begin with. Some representatives are apparently doing their jobs, or at least their aids are. Look at the PATRIOT Act and the number of legislators that never even read the thing much less describe how it affects us to this day.
I too don't give a fuck if I can tivo CSI, I don't get that wrapped up in TV although I sure as hell want to retain my freedoms so in the future if I do care I'll be able to.
The parent to my post replied with the answer to this. Today 1/3rd of new Windows machines are pirated. That means the majority of the growth is not pirated. There is nothing to reconcile, piracy in this day is not what it was back in 95. For whatever reason more people are buying. I don't know too many people switching to Linux because Windows is too expensive. The few times I've converted our servers to Linux its been because we didn't have a Windows license and it was easy to find a distribution fit for that function without a lot of effort.
That said, how many people pirated an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP? I'll guesstimate not many. Most people leave the old operating system on the computer until the computer dies and then they buy a new one with the latest OS. That's why we still have so many 98/2k machines out there.
I'd argue that there isn't a ton of piracy except among technical circles which know that you can run alternate operating systems.
Perfectly valid points and I think they only support my claim that Vista won't drive more people to Linux in greater numbers. I think the success of Linux depends on its continued development and increases usage. As more people use it the more they tell their friends and so on and so forth. It'll grow slow but its like any type of small business. You start out doing small amounts of business and as you grow you take on proportionally more and more.
I think Linux will only become more and more influential as time goes by, but I don't think the success of Vista will be influenced in and measureable way by Linux. I think Linux growth is purely momentum but people need to keep in mind that Microsoft also has a lot of momentum and their products are becoming more and more complete in the corporate world which will only make it harder for Linux. I think its the corporate world Microsoft wants to keep and anything else is just gravy.
Most of the corporate improvements they've made to their products don't really help the home user but of course a lot of things that help business do ultimately affect home users so in the end everyone will be more satisfied with Windows. This is to be expected though, people weren't satisfied with Oracle 7 which is why we have Oracle 10g now. Linux will continue to improve so for now its pick the right product for the platform, neither of them are perfect which is why email blasts are done using Debian and sendmail while calendaring and collaboration are done with Exchange/Sharepoint.
At any rate, I don't doubt that Windows will continue to be pirated in the future but Microsoft could be a lot more restrictive given the tools that they already have in place. The BSA are at least as bad as the RIAA/MPAA. In either case I find it a rare case that people go with Linux because its free. There are instances but usually its because it does what they need it to do and won't get bogged down trying to do other things like a Windows box can.
That's a fine attitude to take since that is the reality. Which kernel branch is Linus currently working on again? Not all of them? Okay, thanks.
Good luck with that since the vast vast majority of Vista sales will be through new computer purchases. I don't think it will be a catalyst for anything despite all the hype in either direction.
If Microsoft didn't already have that market share you'd have a point but since the market is there's they no longer depend on piracy. Furthermore when they come across businesses pirating they always gives them the option to license properly before suing them. I'm not sure the number of times MS has ever sued a company for such practices. I know they would be targeting system builders selling pirated copies of Windows as authentic but MS recognizes that this happens which is why someone that falls victim to this get's Windows for $1 if report the company.
I'd say for the most part Microsof still looks away to this day. There token voice has just gotten a little louder in the last couple years.
Or the parent was being sarcastic saying that Linus isn't involved in most of the Linux world. He only works on the kernel afterall. So the feedback isn't there or maybe we're all just shills of our own bias.
I'll reply once again with my original post. Please point out where I was acting like an asshole?
This will prevent me from acting like an asshole in the future. Unless of course I wasn't an asshole and you're responding to my response to an attack based on this post. I'll leave that up to you since you seem to have all the answers.
Your statements put you beyond reason so this is probably pointless but in case I'm wrong I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and reply thinking there might be someone there capable of rational thought. I'll address a few points and the first is that the Samsung A900 on powersave is at most as bright as a Timex watch, probably much less so. I used to use my watch as a flashlight in dark closets.I can't even do that with my A900 on powersave. In fact, most phones I've seen these days, the razr, the nokias all have dimmer screens and of course since the beginning they have all allowed you to adjust the brightness.
Now feel free to go and read the dozen other posts I already responded to and see if you feel the same way. To be honest I don't care. Anyone that jumps to your conclusions based on nothing with abundant evidence around them is beyond reason, beyond rational and hardly worth my time. However since it's directed at me I will respond and I will respond in kind. Attack me and I'll fight back. It's plain and simple, if that makes me an asshole, then I'm an asshole I don't care. Approach determines response and that is how it shall always be.
Feel free to flame away with incredible lack of understanding of the difference between a symptom of cell phone abuse and a problem of rude behavior in public. Being away from a land line isn't a problem, being away from the network is. I'm not going to live in the NOC anymore than anyone else will.
Public forums are about public debate, flamewars accomplish nothing which is why my first post merely suggested an alternative to zero policy. Let your anonymity protect you as it does me. I would have had the same discussion in real life only there I wouldn't have had to write the same thing in ten different places only to have someone fling a don't describe your own attitudes comment at me. haha, at this point its beyond sad its actually starting to become funny.
I'll add just one more thing, the parent suggested the lighting up of a cell phone was the disruptive behavior so the lighting up of a watch is a logical addition to this argument since people do it all the time and no one cares.
You're response is even more humorous since you don't seem to understand the difference between a symptom such as a headache and a problem such as high blood pressure. Treating the headache won't fix the high blood pressure.
You're logical fallacy here is quite amusing since I was referring to a low-tech and cheap way to solve the problem without resorting to zero tolerance which has always worked so well in the past. I don't ignore tech that inconveniences me because honestly if I'm going to a movie there is very little chance I'll be contacted. It's not about what does happen its about what can happen and there are people who need to be contacted as soon as possible and those people cannot seriously be told to have to stay home 24/7/365 because some people in the theater don't want that 13 year old girl answering her phone during a movie. It's utterly ridiculous and from my experience the vast vast majority of people do set their phones to vibrate. Think about the number of times you're in a theater and here a phone go off. Is it 50 different people? Hell no, its one or two on bad days. That means you have 2 assholes in a room with 100 people or even more. Sorry but the answer is not to ban cell phones alltogether just because some people don't get it. It makes no sense, why not ban all cars, alcohol, guns? They all have people that misuse them but the vast majority of their users do not.
That is my statement and if you find it amusing thats fine. I meant exactly what I said. Treating the symptom of rude behavior won't fix rude behavior. The people that can't talk on phones will then talk to other people in the theater.
Thanks for mentioning my treatment, you too seem much more reasonable on the issue and bring up a lot of good points. I see this whole issue as a common trend and I do not blame cell phones for this trend. People in general are more anonymous these days, they can hold a private conversation in a public place essentially meaning they aren't required to interact with their surroundings to the same level. I have no idea the number of accidents caused by cell phone use and I do believe firemen do stay at the firehouse assuming your in a city which has professional firefighters. I know the town I grew up in was 100% volunteer. The pager goes off and they run out the door. It works well for them.
A common problem with technology is figuring out what to do with it. Obviously cell phones are new to our culture and so our culture needs time to adapt. Think about the times when you couldn't even say the word pregnancy over the phone. Times have changed obviously and now people talk about whatever they like. You need people confronting them when they are doing it at inappropriate times much like when a kid learns to fight. Shouldn't teach him not to fight and shouldn't teach him to always fight, but there is a time and a place and you get punished for doing it at an inappropriate time. There are plenty of examples but when it comes to this I just think zero tolerance is a bad idea. I think zero tolerance is just a bad idea alltogether though.
You are correct that cell phones are often a crutch for bad policy. For instance in my world I'm on call 24/7. If they hired another guy to do my job the two of us could share this responsibility and then this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Of course that's not my reality whether cell phones exist or not. So I'll counter your argument saying that cell phones don't make people more rude, people are just more rude in general. There are less physical consequences these days and I think thats why. 50 years ago someone acting inappropriately getting slugged would result in effectively letting someone know they were acting inappropriately. Today if you do that you could end up in jail or in a civil suit. People in general are afraid to step up because they don't understand the consequences that may or may not happen.
Sorry I like to jump around a bit but referring to the problem not being around before 2000; there have always been rude people in theaters, throwing popcorn, talking to the people around them, laughing obnoxiously, anything you can think of really. Now most of the time I see people in their seats and on a bad day you'll hear a cell phone go off followed by intense hatred beams of energy from the rest of the audience. I think people are starting to get the picture. Two years ago it was a much larger issue I think. Every experience I've had in the last year has been a great one. Anecdotal though so I could be way off base.
P.S. I figured out the paragraph tag problem. They want every paragraph to be enclosed instead of alternating like I used to.
Fortunately for us, we lived in a small town where word spread through the town in a matter of hours but thats not as easy in more populated areas. No question, a cell phone is much more affective so the question is what to do about the people that will abuse this technology? There are always people that will find a way to abuse anything.
You are right that there is an overreliance on staying connected but the whole point isn't the number of times you've heard it. It's the possibility that it could occur. All of these people I'm sure go to theaters and I'm fairly certain most of them don't have an issue with this. The whole point is that someone spouting off on a cell phone in a theater is not a problem but a cultural change that needs to occur.
Face it, 20 years ago there were a lot of fires that took a lot longer to get to and a lot more medical misshaps. Cell phones are a part of our culture now so we might as well deal with the underlying issue of rude behavior in a theater rather than treat the one symptom of the issue. She's shouting then take her phone away, better yet, have an usher take it away and if she wants it she can go outside to use it. Seems really easy? Makes sense doesn't it? It's logical? Why do we need to employee new technology to prevent or actively jam this new technology? It's quite an ironic stance especially here on Slashdot when everyday there is talk about the RIAA and MPAA smashing new technology to hold on to old practices. Keep in mind, I'm not calling you a hypocrite since I don't know your stance on said issue. Just a general trend I'm noticing on here on this day.Back to topic; the world didn't get along well without cell phones. It's kind of like saying we all did fine living in small farming communities. As for anecdotal evidence I have seen someone get a phone call and then rush out of the theater. Means nothing, its all about the possibilities and the risks not being worth the price.
I make no assumptions about you, you are perfectly civil and from the impression I get willing to engage in a debate which was all I was attempting to do as well. Of course I could be wrong but its simply amazing the response I get to suggesting a theater use ushers instead of technology to solve a problem. It's like people think that I don't have a problem with someone talking on their cell phone in a theater or at a doctors office or at the dinner table. There is common etiquette many people subscribe to and it only takes one person that doesn't to ruin it for the rest of us. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me but that is perhaps because it would personally affect me.Furthermore if a dim little light as bright as someone looking at their watch to see what time it is bothers you in a theater well guess what? You're way the hell too sensitive to be there in the first place. Are you saying people can't check the time now? Do you seriously see what you're saying? I have no problem with someone opening their cell phone to look at it regardless since I'm doing something crazy like looking at the screen in front of me. It already lights up the audience.
So you've clearly put on an impressive display of ignorance about me without even bothering to address the actual topic. Congratulations, may all your posts be as productive. So please, kindly refrain from making any further assumptions as they only serve to further illustrate your ignorance of me and my behavior. I'm the guy that says something when someone is being disruptive so that the rest of us can enjoy the rest of the movie. It's really easy, almost as easy as turning the brightness down on a cell phone.I've said it before and I'll say it again. Treating a symptom with technology will not fix the problem. If you don't like the possibility that one in 100 people will open their phone then go to a smaller theater where it is less likely to happen. Get a big enough crowd and there will always be at least one asshole, even if it is me.
I think most people just forget they have their cell phones so when it rings they turn it off or on vibrate. Of course there are always the SOBs that just don't care and for them? Your violent solution would probably be the best option. Again best performed by employees.
In all seriousness though bouncers at bars can get rough with patrons that get out of control so why can't ushers at theaters? If the person won't respond to reason there needs to be something to back it up.I'm sure you never had to go to the hospital because you've hit your head on the coffee table and its bleeding profusely while your parents were going to a movie. It happened to my parents when I was a kid. They came home to find not only me missing, but my two older sisters as well. Of course the babysitter left a note but there is very disconcerting for a parent. I'm not a parent myself but I do empathize with people thay would be affected by actively blocking cell phones. As I keep saying, the usher/bouncer approach is far more ideal as it treats the problem by directly speaking to the disruptive people. Of course they are going to need to be a little more intimidating than your average teenage kid but those are logistics issues to be dealt with after people start to agree that technology will not fix the problem because its only treating an individual symptom of that problem. Cure my headache with advil but then I die from dehydration. If you don't fix the problem it just shows up in other ways. Overly dramatic I know but the point is valid.
I tend to think another simple, cheap, and effective solution is to just have the ushers walk around the theaters and ask people to leave if they are caught on their cell phone. No more passive-aggressive behavior. Can't treat the symptom to a problem and expect the problem to go away. People can't use their cell phones and just like 10 years ago they will be talking to the people around them. There are always disruptive people especially when you're talking about crowds the size of most theaters these days.
The usher/bouncer idea I think works best in both places. You pay a guy that goes around and looks for the disruptive people and has them leave. Before long people will get the idea and the disruptive people will be getting drunk and be loud someplace else while the people that want to enjoy it can do so in peace. Of course a lot of it I think is some people are just too sensitive.