Yeah, that's one of the problems of this whole "security" thing. Why can't I just buy an antivirus, instead of bothering to upgrade my apps every single time for "security updates"? that works so well on Windows...
I don't understand your post. What does antivirus and security have to do with wanting to run the application of your choice?
The you're still probably better off than on other systems if you can only find/download/buy version 3.0 and no one will sell you 2.5 anymore. If you're lucky on linux you may be able to acquire and compile the source for the old version -- not pretty, but better than it simply being unavailable.
Who's talking about buying stuff? The moment you talk about having to download source and compile something, you have failed to deliver ease of use to non-technical users. I'm sure that you and I could compile something from source and install it, but that does nothing for users who have trouble using apt-get or synaptic.
Meanwhile, a Windows XP user can still install and run a 10 year old software package. We've failed to deliver the same level of software longevity to Linux users and have instead squeezed them into narrow window of constant upgrades and lockstep application/OS upgrade tie-in.
There already is an easy to use UI for apt that's been around for years. It's called Synaptic.
Synaptic is easy to use for (some) computer experts. It's not easy to use for regular users. The Add/Remove Programs in the Applications menu in Ubuntu is easy to use. It's simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, it doesn't show all of the available packages.
That's great if the repository has what you want. What do you do if you want to install a program that is newer or older than the one in the repository? Now you have to become a system administrator, compile software from source, etc,etc. That's far too complex for users who prefer to use an older version of a program or want the latest version.
Actually, I don't think your trademark comment was dumb.
I didn't think that you did. You referenced the second sentence in my message which was "Try another argument."
I was objecting to the "Try another argument. This one has failed." That seemed unnecessarily rude, or at least overly combative. A bit like posting "FAIL".
My response had nothing in common with the popular "FAIL" meme. What I typed were simple statements with as few words as possible needed to convey my message. The poster had an idea that he wanted to communicate but his analysis was demonstrably flawed. I suggested that he try another argument as his first one failed to meet its objective. There was nothing rude or combative about those sentences. They were simple and direct statements, but true nonetheless.
I know that in today's world, particularly in the US, people are conditioned to be unable to accept negative news unless their ego is stroked and they are reassured that everything will be okay. I will, however, make no apologies for not sweetening my statement. The very existence of the slashdot story in which he was commenting disproved his claim, demonstrating that he either lacks critical thinking and reading comprehension skills, or didn't bother to use them. In either case, my response was exceedingly polite given the context in which he posted.
I'd quote your second line back at you, but it's rude and kind of dumb, so I won't.
You're free to be rude and dumb all you want! Don't stop on my account. What do you think is wrong with my argument? The poster claimed that "Netbook" was too generic and descriptive to be given a trademark. That claim is provably false as "netbook" is currently trademarked. In fact, the subject of this slashdot article is itself a counter to his claim.
As an aside, it is possible for a diluted mark to lose its protected status (such as with Bayer's "Aspirin" analgesic).
That's a bad example. The US trademark on aspirin was given up as part of Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. It was never diluted in the US and remains a trademark in other parts of the world.
It's always the slush fund. Houston, TX had a "toll road project" that was supposed to end the toll roads 10 years after the beltway was completed. How did they get around it? They put one little "spur" of 1/4 mile off the edge, claimed it was supposed to "eventually" be a mile long, and deliberately left it unfinished so that they can claim the project is "not completed."
That's why you always set an end date. Then excuses about the project being "not completed" won't work.
Please don't ever go into law or business because it is clear that your understanding of either is unbelievably flawed.
That's a very unhelpful thing to say. Although you might have a deep understanding of law and/or business, talking down to others because you know something they do not is childish.
How can you tell it's silver if you can't see the colour?
Because mirrors are made by applying a thin coat of silver to glass. The result is highly reflective but still imparts some of its own color onto the reflected light.
That solution is culturally as American as apple pie, and something like that is doomed to failure in a place like China. People don't even understand that you're supposed to buy software licenses, that you can't just copy and paste other websites onto your own, and so on.
You're right. I'm an American and that's an American management perspective that I expressed. I disagree with your assertion that this would be doomed to failure. Not every problem can be solved, but many problems can be reduced in severity, which is the purpose in this situation. I realize that there is no way to fully prevent someone from using pirated software within the office. Even if one were to lock down the desktops, use thin clients, or replace all software with free and/or open source software, someone could always bring a computer into the office and bypass any measures that have been put into place.
The goal of establishing the policies and training is not only to prevent use of pirated software, but to establish a guideline for what is and is not acceptable behavior. Without a policy, the employee will not know what is expected of them, and the company will appear to either encourage piracy or be indifferent to it. Both of these will reflect poorly on the company should legal action be taken against them for using pirated software. By having the policy, and ensuring that employees know and understand the policy, much of the burden of the piracy is placed on the employee. Instead of not knowing what is expected of them, the employee is now aware that using pirated software is not acceptable behavior. If they continue to do it, they will be aware that there might be consequences if they are caught. Meanwhile, the company can prove that they have taken reasonable measures to eliminate the use of pirated software which could reduce the risk they might have to bear if an employee breaks the law.
Create a written IT policy for hardware and software. Make sure everyone knows what it is. Create a business ethics policy and ensure that components of it address using unlicensed software. Make sure that your employees are trained on these policies and that a record of training goes into their employee file. If the employees violate the policy, warn them in writing and file the notice in their HR record. If they violate the policy again, fire them. If they want to keep their job, they will fall into line and stop exposing the company to unnecessary legal risk.
Which proves my point. Why is this product coming from Microsoft Research? Someone else, namely PGMusic, had already invented this product. At least PGMusic will be able to profit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a common example. I run into this with users often. I had the same problem when switching to a linux desktop.
I don't understand your post. What does antivirus and security have to do with wanting to run the application of your choice?
Who's talking about buying stuff? The moment you talk about having to download source and compile something, you have failed to deliver ease of use to non-technical users. I'm sure that you and I could compile something from source and install it, but that does nothing for users who have trouble using apt-get or synaptic.
Meanwhile, a Windows XP user can still install and run a 10 year old software package. We've failed to deliver the same level of software longevity to Linux users and have instead squeezed them into narrow window of constant upgrades and lockstep application/OS upgrade tie-in.
Synaptic is easy to use for (some) computer experts. It's not easy to use for regular users. The Add/Remove Programs in the Applications menu in Ubuntu is easy to use. It's simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, it doesn't show all of the available packages.
The software is too new of a version. I want/need version 2.5 and the version that apt-get wants to install is 3.0. Now what?
That's great if the repository has what you want. What do you do if you want to install a program that is newer or older than the one in the repository? Now you have to become a system administrator, compile software from source, etc ,etc. That's far too complex for users who prefer to use an older version of a program or want the latest version.
I didn't think that you did. You referenced the second sentence in my message which was "Try another argument."
My response had nothing in common with the popular "FAIL" meme. What I typed were simple statements with as few words as possible needed to convey my message. The poster had an idea that he wanted to communicate but his analysis was demonstrably flawed. I suggested that he try another argument as his first one failed to meet its objective. There was nothing rude or combative about those sentences. They were simple and direct statements, but true nonetheless.
I know that in today's world, particularly in the US, people are conditioned to be unable to accept negative news unless their ego is stroked and they are reassured that everything will be okay. I will, however, make no apologies for not sweetening my statement. The very existence of the slashdot story in which he was commenting disproved his claim, demonstrating that he either lacks critical thinking and reading comprehension skills, or didn't bother to use them. In either case, my response was exceedingly polite given the context in which he posted.
...asks the person who who is posting anonymously.
From the picture, it looks a lot like a fresnel lens.
You're free to be rude and dumb all you want! Don't stop on my account. What do you think is wrong with my argument? The poster claimed that "Netbook" was too generic and descriptive to be given a trademark. That claim is provably false as "netbook" is currently trademarked. In fact, the subject of this slashdot article is itself a counter to his claim.
That's a bad example. The US trademark on aspirin was given up as part of Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. It was never diluted in the US and remains a trademark in other parts of the world.
It already is a trademark. Try another argument. This one has failed.
The MusicBrainz project could use them, and you get a tax write-off.
You're in the wrong century, grandpa. No one uses modems any more.
That's why you always set an end date. Then excuses about the project being "not completed" won't work.
Not usually, but I have done so before. If it hurts your thumb, you're holding it wrong.
Unfortunately, that's not an option for laptops.
That's a very unhelpful thing to say. Although you might have a deep understanding of law and/or business, talking down to others because you know something they do not is childish.
Because mirrors are made by applying a thin coat of silver to glass. The result is highly reflective but still imparts some of its own color onto the reflected light.
Silver.
You're right. I'm an American and that's an American management perspective that I expressed. I disagree with your assertion that this would be doomed to failure. Not every problem can be solved, but many problems can be reduced in severity, which is the purpose in this situation. I realize that there is no way to fully prevent someone from using pirated software within the office. Even if one were to lock down the desktops, use thin clients, or replace all software with free and/or open source software, someone could always bring a computer into the office and bypass any measures that have been put into place.
The goal of establishing the policies and training is not only to prevent use of pirated software, but to establish a guideline for what is and is not acceptable behavior. Without a policy, the employee will not know what is expected of them, and the company will appear to either encourage piracy or be indifferent to it. Both of these will reflect poorly on the company should legal action be taken against them for using pirated software. By having the policy, and ensuring that employees know and understand the policy, much of the burden of the piracy is placed on the employee. Instead of not knowing what is expected of them, the employee is now aware that using pirated software is not acceptable behavior. If they continue to do it, they will be aware that there might be consequences if they are caught. Meanwhile, the company can prove that they have taken reasonable measures to eliminate the use of pirated software which could reduce the risk they might have to bear if an employee breaks the law.
Create a written IT policy for hardware and software. Make sure everyone knows what it is. Create a business ethics policy and ensure that components of it address using unlicensed software. Make sure that your employees are trained on these policies and that a record of training goes into their employee file. If the employees violate the policy, warn them in writing and file the notice in their HR record. If they violate the policy again, fire them. If they want to keep their job, they will fall into line and stop exposing the company to unnecessary legal risk.
I have to disagree. NIH never ends up helping.
Bail out the torture industry!
Which proves my point. Why is this product coming from Microsoft Research? Someone else, namely PGMusic, had already invented this product. At least PGMusic will be able to profit from it.