I'm fed up with all this "ooh better stop using microsoft, otherwise your face will melt clean off" bullshit.
Many of us aren't so extreme, but "better stop hooking a default install of Windows straight to the internet, or you're asking for trouble" is a pretty fair statement.
There are PLENTY of things people can do in windows to protect themselves as much as they want.
True, and there is much to be done to a Windows install before it's ready for general internet use. You really need to install an Antivirus. You need a firewall (MS Windows XP built-in does not count). You need several pieces of spyware-protection/removal software (perhaps someone will come out with a good comprehensive solution soon). I'd highly recommend not using Internet Explorer except for sites that need it (Windows Update). I'd keep up to date on the Critical Updates for Windows. And, if your computer has any users who aren't computer people, and I'd run it in a user account, not the administrators or Power Users account. Unfortunately, since the default is to run in an Admin account, many developers have made their programs to run in only an Admin account, so running in a user account is problematic, but still recommended.
You take all the necessary precautions, and you're pretty close to the level of security found in the default, out-of-the-box install of most Linux distros or MacOSX-- which is to say, not totally secure, but sufficient for most cases. In no case is any system perfect, and if you have an uneducated user with admin-type rights, you're likely to run into problems on any system.
Suggesting moving to another operating system shows your real intentions here.
No, actually, suggesting that people use the best tool for the job that they're doing is my serious PROFESSIONAL advice. Yes, like many here, I support these sorts of boxes on a daily basis. Linux, MacOS, and Windows. Many people are familiar with Windows, and they're dealing with clients who run Windows, and they need to run programs that only have Windows versions. In those cases, Windows is what I recommend. If you're looking for a web server, in most cases, I'm going to recommend a Linux/Apache solution, unless there's some special need. For general desktops, I used to favor Windows, but since OS X 10.2, I've been leaning more in the direction of Macintoshes, whenever the needs of the user allow for it. However, both Gnome and KDE are looking pretty good, as are OpenOffice and Evolution, so in some cases, I have advised that someone try out an Ubuntu install and see if it works for them.
All of this to say, I am a professional, and it's my professional opinion that Windows is often not the best solution. Currently, what tends to make it the best solution is hardware/networking/file-format/application incompatibilities due to the fact that most of the world runs Windows and MS doesn't tend to make their software compliant to any sorts of standards (other than their own standards, which no one else has access to). In other words, Windows is almost only the best solution when you're suffering from vendor lock-in.
It's my semi-objective and professional opinion that you shouldn't use Windows unless you have to, and when you do have to, take the time to secure your box properly.
User education will never happen -- you might as well accept it...Most people don't need their computers to do much. The proportion of people who actually use their computer as a computer, rather than a browser-emailer-wordprocessor, is tiny.
I think you're right. I wonder if that might be a good reason to have operating systems, by default, ship with everything locked down pretty well, allowing for basic applications. For people who know enough to understand that they can do more than word-processing, care enough to do it, and know enough to access that extra functionality, you'll be enabled to bypass certain security measures. So, as a principle, the security is such that you need to know what you're doing in order to do something insecure.
The problem with this is, the same people who only use their computer for e-mail will get upset if you take away their weatherbug and their favorite virus-infected screensaver or spyware infected cursor-set. It's the people who don't understand computers who refuse to believe that there's a connection between giving complete system-wide freedom to people who know nothing about computers and the types of computer problems they experience. Until this is resolved, the operating system that sacrifices security in order to pander to users will remain dominant.
People use what they use. I know people who still use NS4. Firefox is great and all, but you stiil have to force people to change. Otherwise, they will just use whatever browser is installed on their computer.
I can agree with that as long as you're talking about the most computer-illiterate section of the market-- i.e. my grandparents. They'll use whatever browser you put in front of them, and they'll call it 'the internets'. It's not so much out of laziness or indifference, they just don't know how to download things or install programs. They barely know how to check their own e-mail. Yes, those people, you'll have to just install it for them. Put a shortcut to Firefox on their desktop, give it the Internet Explorer icon, and change it's name from "Shortcut to Firefox.exe" to "Internets". They'll barely know the difference.
On the other hand I help out with a friend's small business computer problems sometimes, and he had a spyware problem, so I installed Firefox on his Windows Machine. Next time I came back, he had tried to install Firefox on all of his computers, including his Macintoshes.
I say 'tried' because he doesn't even know how to install Firefox on a Macintosh. For those who don't use OSX, the procedure consists of dragging a single icon from a disk image to anywhere on your hard drive (preferbly your 'Applications' folder). So that's how non-computer-geek the guy was, but he really liked Firefox, and wanted to have it on all his computers.
Ok, so my point isn't to evangelise Firefox here, but what I'm saying is, don't underestimate the users too much. If you're offering another piece of software, the sales-pitch being that it's almost as easy to use, and it has good politics (OSS/GPL), then they'll probably be indifferent. If you're offering 2 [roughly] equivalent pieces of software, one of which is already installed and ready-to-use, they'll just keep what they have. However, if it's really offering a better user experience, even the semi-clueless are able to make up their own minds to switch. If you're really offering them better software (better in ways that they'll notice) with no downside-- well, then they'll go through some effort to switch.
The totally-clueless, well, even when they're easy to convince, you'll still have to install it for them anyway, so it's almost just as well to go ahead and install it and see if they notice.
When the creature dies, all its memories of "hardship" stored in its neural net melt into the same pile of amino-acid goop. It's irrelevant.
When you die, all your memories of "hardship" stored in your neural net melt into the same pile of amino-acid goop. How irrelevant would it be if we all tortured you?
The devil, as they say, is in the details....The entire world might be concerned about global warming--but that doesn't mean that an international treaty focused on global warming is automatically a good idea.
I hope people realize that this sort of thing goes on all the time. Even when people agree there's a problem, they don't always agree on the solution. Environmental issues are more complicated than voting, "Yes, I think we don't want to polute more than we have to." Dealing with poverty is more complicated than voting, "Yes, I think we should help the poor."
What happens pretty often is, you hear things during campeigns like, "[Candidate A] wouldn't pass this tax cut to help working families!" and the ad ignores that the tax cut was bundled with all sorts of rediculous pork. You hear about how Democrats won't pass a ban on partial birth abortion, while Republican leaders refuse to include consideration for the life of the mother-- specifically to keep the law from passing and keep issue on the table.
There was an incident where Clinton enacted some environmental laws right before he took office that were pretty unreasonable, and unlikely to have a good effect. Why? They knew Bush would have to repeal them, and then they could slam him for being "anti-environment".
Really, this crap happens all the time. So slashdotters, voting against an environmentalist bill or treaty does not necessarily mean you want to *destroy* the environment. It might just mean that you had a problem with the means to protecting the environment *in that bill*. That might be because you see some other problem with the bill, or maybe you just don't think the bill will work.
Likewise with any other subject. Voting against one gun-control bill does not mean you like giving guns to criminals. Voting against one anti-abortion bill does not mean that you want to go around terminating every woman's pregnancy. Voting against *one* campeign-finance-reform bill does not mean you're in favor of bribes. It *may* indicate *something* about that politicians leanings, but it's never as simple as the sound-bites sound.
It seems to me like they could even have some 'utility' versions in the mix-- as in the 'utility' in 'Sports Utility Vehicle'-- for those times when you need to cart something that's not passengers. I speak from experience when I say, moving furnature or bicycles or whatever on the subway is a pain for the mover and an annoyance for the other passengers. Part of what seems nice about having individual cars is, you could pick the right car for the job.
No, I'm saying people don't RELY on games as much as they do on an OS. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you really insist on framing it in a "games don't matter" sense, I would say that games don't matter AS MUCH as an OS because the OS is more relied upon.
Well, the OS is the means by which you accomplish other things on your computer, but is not an end in itself. What I mean is, an OS with nothing else installed and running is useless. It's just the pre-existant condition necessary for the running of your programs, but running the programs is what you're after. If the OS is fine, but all the applications/games that I run are crippled, it's as bad as the OS being crippled. Therefore, if I keep a Windows PC for only the purpose of playing games, then games DO matter AS MUCH as the OS. In fact, if the game could run independant of the OS, then the OS would be completely irrelevant.
However, I don't really want to argue whether the OS is more vital than a game, but rather I'm saying that it's beside the point. Activation is a bad thing in that it's a vendor purposefully crippling what he's selling. If what he's selling is important enough (to me) for me to spend money on it, than it's important enough to get upset about the vendor crippling it.
If it really weren't important, no one here would be buying Half-Life anyway, and the vendors wouldn't be spending their time coming up with copy protection. Obviously it matters. Once you admit it matters, then whether it matters AS MUCH as the OS is irrelevant.
It's ok if game developers make it so you can't play the game you bought from them, because games don't really matter.
It's fine if the game I purchased stops working at some arbitrary point, because playing games doesn't really matter.
It's ok for Valve to abuse their customer base, because Valve isn't a monopoly.
Ok, so if that's right, let's just not buy games from these companies, because obviously games don't matter. Let's see how much game developers appreciate that attitude.
Or-- how about when I spend money on something, that I get value for my money... like, say, a working product? By spending money on it, I've demonstrated that it matters *to me*. By nature, activation is an annoyance that demonstrates that the developer has no problem hassling and annoying their own customers, and possibly rendering their own product unusable, in the hopes of squeezing out a few more pennies. On principle, we should boycott products with activation, and since HL2 has it, and since (according to you) games don't matter, it's a good place to start.
(Disclaimer: I don't have HL2 because I don't have a Windows machine anymore. However, if I did, after hearing that it requires activation, I still don't think I would buy it.)
Sure they have someone who can plug or un-plug cables, but when it comes to setting up a mail server or a firewall, or backing up the accounting data, they are pretty clueless.
Setting up a firewall-- it's often included in the internet router if you use one, plus it's included by default in many Linux Distros.
Backing up accounting data-- agreed that Linux could stand some improvements in the backups-for-know-nothings department, but then again, so could windows, and so could Mac. In my view, anyhow, the state of backups is pretty poor in general. The backup procedure always ends up being inefficient, complex and expensive, or creating useless backups.
Setting up a mail server-- this enters a whole new realm in my mind. Could there be some better configuration tools to set up mail servers, FTP servers, etc.? Sure. But setting up a mail server-- you should have some idea of what you're doing. This, to me, crosses into the realm of, if you're setting it up for a small business, at least get the high-school kid who's played with Linux come and help you out for $6 a hour (and I've been that high-school kid), because you shouldn't be setting up real servers that do things on the internet if you're "pretty clueless". I mean, the idea of "I'm clueless enough to not know how to set up a mail client, but I want to set up a mail server all by myself" sounds dangerous.
So, I agree, when it comes to Linux Desktops, we should have the option of automatic configuration whenever possible, good security, easy setup, easy networking and network sharing, and machines that work out-of-the-box. And we pretty much have that now (though, of course, it can always be improved).
If you want to set up a complicated network with servers, you should know what you're doing. If you're on a budget and don't need feel you need the full expertise of someone like IBM, then look for a smaller consulting agency nearby that might have more reasonable terms. They exist. If paying a professional costs too much, and you just need something simple, hire an amateur.
But a zero-configuration mail server? What, you're not even going to give it an IP, a hostname, domainname, usernames, or passwords? It's not happening.
Or is the complaint, "Why don't we have service from a major vendor like IBM, but for a small business with a very small budget?" My answer would be, if you want enterprise-level products with enterprise-level support from a tier 1 vendor-- well, then you'll pay enterprise-level prices. IBM deals with relatively small businesses, but it'll still be expensive (relative to doing it yourself). If your budget simply won't provide for that, then seek a more economical solution. Complaining about this situation comes across a little like complaining, "What about the small businesses who want $20k worth of computer equipment, but don't have $20k to spend on computer equipment?" Well, TS.
So what am I missing? What was the author of the article asking for?
Well, of course, ultimately, version numbering schemes aren't any absolute statement of stability, any more than changing the knob to go to 11 will make your speakers louder. Software developers have made up numbers (the first release being 3.0) or skipped numbers (gone from 3.0 to 5.0). Mac OS version 10 was not a revision of verion 9, so 10.0 really wasn't as ready-to-use as 9.0. Some software has gone down-hill as its version numbers go up.
I was just commenting on the way Microsoft works. They tend to release products before they're really done, and, perhaps by coincidence, but perhaps not, the version 3.0 was the first usable version of a number of their products. I'm not saying this out of a lust for criticism of Microsoft. Version numbers should have something to do with the state of your product, but you just need to know how the company you're dealing with uses their numbering scheme.
Knowing Microsoft's use of their numbering scheme, if you abstractly told me, "Microsoft released a [New Product] version 1.0 today!" I'd say "Wait for version 3.0." That's not a criticism any more than if someone said, "Mozilla released [something]bird version.1" and I said, "Maybe wait until.5".
I get that, but I still don't really understand what he's pushing for. I mean-- what, above having HP/IBM/Dell or some other hardware vendor selling Linux desktops?
You can have scheduled updates on many Linux distros without much difficulty-- if you want that. If you buy Linux from Redhat/Novell or someone, what's being sold is support. Plus, you have support from your hardware vendor.
As far as being "plug and play" or "zero configuration", it's pretty much there for the desktop clients, right? I mean, if you have Redhat or SuSE or something installed, what's so complicated about that?
On the server level, well... when are you even going to not-need someone to help set that up? Is this what he's asking for? Because, I'll tell you, I don't think there's a shortage of Linux consultants who will help you out with that.
Or is it an all-in-one solution? One large corporate company that sells the hardware, software, setup, and support? I'm sure there are smaller consultants who will help you with that, but if you want a big corporate-type body, I'd take a look at IBM or Apple (not linux, but similar). From these companies, that sort of service won't be cheap, but I'm pretty sure they'll do it.
So what is it that he's really asking for?
Re:The Mozilla brand is probably stronger now
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
yeah, that was what I was saying, too. KHTML, Gecko, Opera... They all work well enough for my work. If IE became a standards-compliant browser, my complaints against it would diminish.
Today Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux announced today that they had reached a consensus and have declared that Linux is indeed an operating system.
I'd say "Mod parent up" or something, but you're doing fine on your own. I think you're correct, that the existing IP distribution business are doomed, or at least they're going to need to change.
What should be looked at as an example is the difference between Cable TV and DVD sales. In an overly simplistic way, it's the difference between paying for communication infrastructure and paying for a physical medium. Well, in today's world, the medium is becoming more and more irrelevant, while the communication infrastructure is becoming more vital. Even if technology threatens medium-based sales, that doesn't mean there's no money to be made, that only means the business models must change.
You can still charge for a login to the service. You can still charge for bandwidth. If you put every piece of recorded music available on the internet, that's a lot of data. The more data, the harder it is to find what you want, so you can charge for a means to sort through that data, to find the album you're looking for, or find a recommendation for another album you might like. And with all that data, you can surely charge (somehow) for storage space.
I'm really just agreeing with you, I guess. I think there will always be money to be made, so long as you're providing a valuable service that people can't do for themselves. If you're not providing a valuable service that people can't do for themselves, then don't whine that you're not making enough money.
Re:The Mozilla brand is probably stronger now
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
And from my point of view, the browser war translates to "IE vs. standards compliance" From a webmaster's point of view, the percentages should break down based on rendering engine, not brand name.
Having been a webmaster, it often doesn't even break down to rendering engine. It breaks down mostly to what you said the first time, "IE vs. standards compliance". If it's standards compliant, it'll pretty much work in modern non-IE browsers. So I used to test pages against some different browsers, but if the code was validated, it was pretty much fine, so I didn't worry too much. Then I just had to get it to worry about IE.
So, to a certain extent, I'm not too worried how the market share breaks down, as long as the major browsers are cohering to standards.
[Version] 3.0 was the first IE that was usable, if I remember correctly.
As is the general pattern with Microsoft. It's utter crap until you hit 3.0. Completely unusable. Version 3.0 works, but it's still not really good-- it's still buggy, and a lot of things need to be worked out. Version 4.0 works pretty well, but still needs some polish. By 5.0 it's pretty good, but that's overshadowed by the feature bloat that has crept in, which has brought a slew of usability problems and security issues with it. Everything from then on is in maintenance mode.
New "Gee whiz!" features get added every so often, but the useful features remain pretty much the same since 5.0. Along with that, they don't actually get around to fixing the problems that 5.0 had. The strategy seems to become more and more, "how do we get people to keep buying version 5.0 over and over again?"
Re:Netscape backed by firefox??
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
The Mozilla project has been saying for some time that they intend to replace the existing Mozilla suite with a bundle of stand-alone applications, including Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, and I'm guessing a HTML editor and chat program (which I'm not aware of there currently being stand-alone Mozilla apps for these).
So now, the plan seems to be to keep on with the old suite while all the components of the new suite reach 1.0, then continue to maintain it for hold-back users, but to push the Firefox/Thunderbird/whatever combo as the real product of the Mozilla Foundation.
I think the name "Netscape" actually carries negative currency. I know people who still harbor such residual hatred for Netscape 4 that the only reason they happily use Firefox now is because it doesn't say "Netscape" on it anywhere. And these people are developers!
Yeah, but what about non-developers? I've sold many people on switching to Firefox who weren't otherwise prepared to do so by saying, "this is the new version of Netscape."
Ignoring that sort of thing, with all the positive press surrounding Firefox, I think releasing a new Netscape is running the risk of confusing people.
Re:Netscape backed by firefox??
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
Isn't firefox based on Mozilla? Wasn't Mozilla based on Netscape? So now Netscape is going to be based on Firefox?
Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?! ?!
*Head Explodes*
It's really not that "head asploding" if you thing about it. Ultimately, Netscape is basing their new browser off of its own source, which was the point of the Mozilla project to begin with. Take the Netscape code, open-source it, and base your code off of the updated open-sourced version. It's the same thing that's going on with StarOffice and OpenOffice, and... well, that's how open-sourcing tends to work, no?
So Netscape hadn't updated their browser in a long time, and in the meantime the code forked, and they chose one of the forks. No head asplosions.
I'm interested in the number of installs per download. Because I suspect *that* is a very high number as well.
Probably true, especially if you consider businesses. The IT staff downloads 1 copy, and uses that copy to push it out to everyone else's computer. That's what we're doing here.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of us aren't so extreme, but "better stop hooking a default install of Windows straight to the internet, or you're asking for trouble" is a pretty fair statement.
There are PLENTY of things people can do in windows to protect themselves as much as they want.
True, and there is much to be done to a Windows install before it's ready for general internet use. You really need to install an Antivirus. You need a firewall (MS Windows XP built-in does not count). You need several pieces of spyware-protection/removal software (perhaps someone will come out with a good comprehensive solution soon). I'd highly recommend not using Internet Explorer except for sites that need it (Windows Update). I'd keep up to date on the Critical Updates for Windows. And, if your computer has any users who aren't computer people, and I'd run it in a user account, not the administrators or Power Users account. Unfortunately, since the default is to run in an Admin account, many developers have made their programs to run in only an Admin account, so running in a user account is problematic, but still recommended.
You take all the necessary precautions, and you're pretty close to the level of security found in the default, out-of-the-box install of most Linux distros or MacOSX-- which is to say, not totally secure, but sufficient for most cases. In no case is any system perfect, and if you have an uneducated user with admin-type rights, you're likely to run into problems on any system.
Suggesting moving to another operating system shows your real intentions here.
No, actually, suggesting that people use the best tool for the job that they're doing is my serious PROFESSIONAL advice. Yes, like many here, I support these sorts of boxes on a daily basis. Linux, MacOS, and Windows. Many people are familiar with Windows, and they're dealing with clients who run Windows, and they need to run programs that only have Windows versions. In those cases, Windows is what I recommend. If you're looking for a web server, in most cases, I'm going to recommend a Linux/Apache solution, unless there's some special need. For general desktops, I used to favor Windows, but since OS X 10.2, I've been leaning more in the direction of Macintoshes, whenever the needs of the user allow for it. However, both Gnome and KDE are looking pretty good, as are OpenOffice and Evolution, so in some cases, I have advised that someone try out an Ubuntu install and see if it works for them.
All of this to say, I am a professional, and it's my professional opinion that Windows is often not the best solution. Currently, what tends to make it the best solution is hardware/networking/file-format/application incompatibilities due to the fact that most of the world runs Windows and MS doesn't tend to make their software compliant to any sorts of standards (other than their own standards, which no one else has access to). In other words, Windows is almost only the best solution when you're suffering from vendor lock-in.
It's my semi-objective and professional opinion that you shouldn't use Windows unless you have to, and when you do have to, take the time to secure your box properly.
I think you're right. I wonder if that might be a good reason to have operating systems, by default, ship with everything locked down pretty well, allowing for basic applications. For people who know enough to understand that they can do more than word-processing, care enough to do it, and know enough to access that extra functionality, you'll be enabled to bypass certain security measures. So, as a principle, the security is such that you need to know what you're doing in order to do something insecure.
The problem with this is, the same people who only use their computer for e-mail will get upset if you take away their weatherbug and their favorite virus-infected screensaver or spyware infected cursor-set. It's the people who don't understand computers who refuse to believe that there's a connection between giving complete system-wide freedom to people who know nothing about computers and the types of computer problems they experience. Until this is resolved, the operating system that sacrifices security in order to pander to users will remain dominant.
And the fact that it's lawyerspeak raises another issue: even if you do read it, are you going to understand fully what it is you're agreeing to?
I can agree with that as long as you're talking about the most computer-illiterate section of the market-- i.e. my grandparents. They'll use whatever browser you put in front of them, and they'll call it 'the internets'. It's not so much out of laziness or indifference, they just don't know how to download things or install programs. They barely know how to check their own e-mail. Yes, those people, you'll have to just install it for them. Put a shortcut to Firefox on their desktop, give it the Internet Explorer icon, and change it's name from "Shortcut to Firefox.exe" to "Internets". They'll barely know the difference.
On the other hand I help out with a friend's small business computer problems sometimes, and he had a spyware problem, so I installed Firefox on his Windows Machine. Next time I came back, he had tried to install Firefox on all of his computers, including his Macintoshes.
I say 'tried' because he doesn't even know how to install Firefox on a Macintosh. For those who don't use OSX, the procedure consists of dragging a single icon from a disk image to anywhere on your hard drive (preferbly your 'Applications' folder). So that's how non-computer-geek the guy was, but he really liked Firefox, and wanted to have it on all his computers.
Ok, so my point isn't to evangelise Firefox here, but what I'm saying is, don't underestimate the users too much. If you're offering another piece of software, the sales-pitch being that it's almost as easy to use, and it has good politics (OSS/GPL), then they'll probably be indifferent. If you're offering 2 [roughly] equivalent pieces of software, one of which is already installed and ready-to-use, they'll just keep what they have. However, if it's really offering a better user experience, even the semi-clueless are able to make up their own minds to switch. If you're really offering them better software (better in ways that they'll notice) with no downside-- well, then they'll go through some effort to switch.
The totally-clueless, well, even when they're easy to convince, you'll still have to install it for them anyway, so it's almost just as well to go ahead and install it and see if they notice.
When you die, all your memories of "hardship" stored in your neural net melt into the same pile of amino-acid goop. How irrelevant would it be if we all tortured you?
I hope people realize that this sort of thing goes on all the time. Even when people agree there's a problem, they don't always agree on the solution. Environmental issues are more complicated than voting, "Yes, I think we don't want to polute more than we have to." Dealing with poverty is more complicated than voting, "Yes, I think we should help the poor."
What happens pretty often is, you hear things during campeigns like, "[Candidate A] wouldn't pass this tax cut to help working families!" and the ad ignores that the tax cut was bundled with all sorts of rediculous pork. You hear about how Democrats won't pass a ban on partial birth abortion, while Republican leaders refuse to include consideration for the life of the mother-- specifically to keep the law from passing and keep issue on the table.
There was an incident where Clinton enacted some environmental laws right before he took office that were pretty unreasonable, and unlikely to have a good effect. Why? They knew Bush would have to repeal them, and then they could slam him for being "anti-environment".
Really, this crap happens all the time. So slashdotters, voting against an environmentalist bill or treaty does not necessarily mean you want to *destroy* the environment. It might just mean that you had a problem with the means to protecting the environment *in that bill*. That might be because you see some other problem with the bill, or maybe you just don't think the bill will work.
Likewise with any other subject. Voting against one gun-control bill does not mean you like giving guns to criminals. Voting against one anti-abortion bill does not mean that you want to go around terminating every woman's pregnancy. Voting against *one* campeign-finance-reform bill does not mean you're in favor of bribes. It *may* indicate *something* about that politicians leanings, but it's never as simple as the sound-bites sound.
It seems to me like they could even have some 'utility' versions in the mix-- as in the 'utility' in 'Sports Utility Vehicle'-- for those times when you need to cart something that's not passengers. I speak from experience when I say, moving furnature or bicycles or whatever on the subway is a pain for the mover and an annoyance for the other passengers. Part of what seems nice about having individual cars is, you could pick the right car for the job.
Well, the OS is the means by which you accomplish other things on your computer, but is not an end in itself. What I mean is, an OS with nothing else installed and running is useless. It's just the pre-existant condition necessary for the running of your programs, but running the programs is what you're after. If the OS is fine, but all the applications/games that I run are crippled, it's as bad as the OS being crippled. Therefore, if I keep a Windows PC for only the purpose of playing games, then games DO matter AS MUCH as the OS. In fact, if the game could run independant of the OS, then the OS would be completely irrelevant.
However, I don't really want to argue whether the OS is more vital than a game, but rather I'm saying that it's beside the point. Activation is a bad thing in that it's a vendor purposefully crippling what he's selling. If what he's selling is important enough (to me) for me to spend money on it, than it's important enough to get upset about the vendor crippling it.
If it really weren't important, no one here would be buying Half-Life anyway, and the vendors wouldn't be spending their time coming up with copy protection. Obviously it matters. Once you admit it matters, then whether it matters AS MUCH as the OS is irrelevant.
- It's ok if game developers make it so you can't play the game you bought from them, because games don't really matter.
- It's fine if the game I purchased stops working at some arbitrary point, because playing games doesn't really matter.
- It's ok for Valve to abuse their customer base, because Valve isn't a monopoly.
Ok, so if that's right, let's just not buy games from these companies, because obviously games don't matter. Let's see how much game developers appreciate that attitude.Or-- how about when I spend money on something, that I get value for my money... like, say, a working product? By spending money on it, I've demonstrated that it matters *to me*. By nature, activation is an annoyance that demonstrates that the developer has no problem hassling and annoying their own customers, and possibly rendering their own product unusable, in the hopes of squeezing out a few more pennies. On principle, we should boycott products with activation, and since HL2 has it, and since (according to you) games don't matter, it's a good place to start.
(Disclaimer: I don't have HL2 because I don't have a Windows machine anymore. However, if I did, after hearing that it requires activation, I still don't think I would buy it.)
So, I agree, when it comes to Linux Desktops, we should have the option of automatic configuration whenever possible, good security, easy setup, easy networking and network sharing, and machines that work out-of-the-box. And we pretty much have that now (though, of course, it can always be improved).
If you want to set up a complicated network with servers, you should know what you're doing. If you're on a budget and don't need feel you need the full expertise of someone like IBM, then look for a smaller consulting agency nearby that might have more reasonable terms. They exist. If paying a professional costs too much, and you just need something simple, hire an amateur.
But a zero-configuration mail server? What, you're not even going to give it an IP, a hostname, domainname, usernames, or passwords? It's not happening.
Or is the complaint, "Why don't we have service from a major vendor like IBM, but for a small business with a very small budget?" My answer would be, if you want enterprise-level products with enterprise-level support from a tier 1 vendor-- well, then you'll pay enterprise-level prices. IBM deals with relatively small businesses, but it'll still be expensive (relative to doing it yourself). If your budget simply won't provide for that, then seek a more economical solution. Complaining about this situation comes across a little like complaining, "What about the small businesses who want $20k worth of computer equipment, but don't have $20k to spend on computer equipment?" Well, TS.
So what am I missing? What was the author of the article asking for?
I was just commenting on the way Microsoft works. They tend to release products before they're really done, and, perhaps by coincidence, but perhaps not, the version 3.0 was the first usable version of a number of their products. I'm not saying this out of a lust for criticism of Microsoft. Version numbers should have something to do with the state of your product, but you just need to know how the company you're dealing with uses their numbering scheme.
Knowing Microsoft's use of their numbering scheme, if you abstractly told me, "Microsoft released a [New Product] version 1.0 today!" I'd say "Wait for version 3.0." That's not a criticism any more than if someone said, "Mozilla released [something]bird version .1" and I said, "Maybe wait until .5".
You can have scheduled updates on many Linux distros without much difficulty-- if you want that. If you buy Linux from Redhat/Novell or someone, what's being sold is support. Plus, you have support from your hardware vendor.
As far as being "plug and play" or "zero configuration", it's pretty much there for the desktop clients, right? I mean, if you have Redhat or SuSE or something installed, what's so complicated about that?
On the server level, well... when are you even going to not-need someone to help set that up? Is this what he's asking for? Because, I'll tell you, I don't think there's a shortage of Linux consultants who will help you out with that.
Or is it an all-in-one solution? One large corporate company that sells the hardware, software, setup, and support? I'm sure there are smaller consultants who will help you with that, but if you want a big corporate-type body, I'd take a look at IBM or Apple (not linux, but similar). From these companies, that sort of service won't be cheap, but I'm pretty sure they'll do it.
So what is it that he's really asking for?
yeah, that was what I was saying, too. KHTML, Gecko, Opera... They all work well enough for my work. If IE became a standards-compliant browser, my complaints against it would diminish.
Oh, but they're wrong. Linux is just the kernel.
What should be looked at as an example is the difference between Cable TV and DVD sales. In an overly simplistic way, it's the difference between paying for communication infrastructure and paying for a physical medium. Well, in today's world, the medium is becoming more and more irrelevant, while the communication infrastructure is becoming more vital. Even if technology threatens medium-based sales, that doesn't mean there's no money to be made, that only means the business models must change.
You can still charge for a login to the service. You can still charge for bandwidth. If you put every piece of recorded music available on the internet, that's a lot of data. The more data, the harder it is to find what you want, so you can charge for a means to sort through that data, to find the album you're looking for, or find a recommendation for another album you might like. And with all that data, you can surely charge (somehow) for storage space.
I'm really just agreeing with you, I guess. I think there will always be money to be made, so long as you're providing a valuable service that people can't do for themselves. If you're not providing a valuable service that people can't do for themselves, then don't whine that you're not making enough money.
Having been a webmaster, it often doesn't even break down to rendering engine. It breaks down mostly to what you said the first time, "IE vs. standards compliance". If it's standards compliant, it'll pretty much work in modern non-IE browsers. So I used to test pages against some different browsers, but if the code was validated, it was pretty much fine, so I didn't worry too much. Then I just had to get it to worry about IE.
So, to a certain extent, I'm not too worried how the market share breaks down, as long as the major browsers are cohering to standards.
As is the general pattern with Microsoft. It's utter crap until you hit 3.0. Completely unusable. Version 3.0 works, but it's still not really good-- it's still buggy, and a lot of things need to be worked out. Version 4.0 works pretty well, but still needs some polish. By 5.0 it's pretty good, but that's overshadowed by the feature bloat that has crept in, which has brought a slew of usability problems and security issues with it. Everything from then on is in maintenance mode.
New "Gee whiz!" features get added every so often, but the useful features remain pretty much the same since 5.0. Along with that, they don't actually get around to fixing the problems that 5.0 had. The strategy seems to become more and more, "how do we get people to keep buying version 5.0 over and over again?"
So now, the plan seems to be to keep on with the old suite while all the components of the new suite reach 1.0, then continue to maintain it for hold-back users, but to push the Firefox/Thunderbird/whatever combo as the real product of the Mozilla Foundation.
Yeah, but what about non-developers? I've sold many people on switching to Firefox who weren't otherwise prepared to do so by saying, "this is the new version of Netscape."
Ignoring that sort of thing, with all the positive press surrounding Firefox, I think releasing a new Netscape is running the risk of confusing people.
Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?! ?!
*Head Explodes*
It's really not that "head asploding" if you thing about it. Ultimately, Netscape is basing their new browser off of its own source, which was the point of the Mozilla project to begin with. Take the Netscape code, open-source it, and base your code off of the updated open-sourced version. It's the same thing that's going on with StarOffice and OpenOffice, and... well, that's how open-sourcing tends to work, no?
So Netscape hadn't updated their browser in a long time, and in the meantime the code forked, and they chose one of the forks. No head asplosions.
and what does that say about you and me, eh?
Oh, but he is. Every site with pop-ups is another advertisement for Firefox. (or, really, any other browser that had pop-up blocking)
I don't know. How does anything get slashdotted when no one ever seems to RTFA?
No, no, no, you're both wrong. It's almost 8 million downloads a fortnight.
Probably true, especially if you consider businesses. The IT staff downloads 1 copy, and uses that copy to push it out to everyone else's computer. That's what we're doing here.