how many people earnestly think it is about usability and security that most people choose their software?
i agree, some of the more sophisticated desktop users might be willing to switch, but much more powerful forces for not switching are: a lot of people don't like serious changes. they know windows (though it might suck), not necessarily the OS, but the brand, so they stick with it.
a lot of companies are either bound by contracts or - more importantly - by internal applications that are broken enough only to work with windows (in that case, to be more specific, mostly word, excel and access).
these are, i think, compelling reasons why a large percentage - mark, percentage, not single individuals - will not want to switch to linux because of what the article states.
all people using one specific language for all tasks are fools and should be fired. the trick is using the right language for the right problem.
besides: stuff like the borland c compiler make "c is portable" a joke.
writing oo in c when you have c++ is stupid, you entirely fundamental basics of oo-concepts such as inheritance, encapsulation and the like.
.... that:
now that we are at it, let's do the following. abandon all that nonsense SI-stuff, instead, we measure everything - the time, the space, our problems - in 'quicks', where one 'quick' is defined as the movement (or the time) the sun spends for moving around the earth once. since this takes some time, we should further divide it into 'microquicks', which is a 1,024th of a quick and into a myonquick, which is a 1,024th of a microquick.
thus, a quick is either the distance or the time the sun spends orbiting around the earth once. in a perfect circle.
why does everybody think of computers as a commodity to be used at leisure without any knowledge? if i buy a dvd (not for the computer) i better be prepared to have a dvd-player and some clue on how to connect it to my tv-set, too.
people are able to watch dvds on their computers, even though there is no pre-installed software. granted, it comes along on cd, but audio-players can be embedded into audio-cds, too.
i don't think this is the point.
the point is that microsoft claims that it would be difficult and possibly damaging to remove wmp from the os.
now talk about tight coupling between software and os. bad thing in my opinion, plus, it remove the freedom of choice from the user.
furthermore, it implies that un-installing wmp properly is hardly possible, so when you think you've gotten rid of it, it has probably just removed some superficial links or such.
Microsoft has protested in the past that unbundling elements of Windows would be difficult and could even damage its operating system.
hm... i do not mean to flame against microsoft (yet another time), but wtf? why and how should a media player damage the os, if decently programmed? to me, it sounds sensible to separate the operating-system from the applications built upon it, not coupling them to an absurde degree. well, from the point of view "it will be easier to distribute both products that way", it is understandable, of course, but shouldn't a clear design weigh more than marketing advantage? mark the should, which is - sorrowfully - the keyword here.
ah, and by the way... what will microsoft do? if i was them, i'd offer a network-based installation of wmp, which is (semi)automatically triggered after the installation of windows. thus, they do not ship wmp with the os, but effectively bundle it in 90% of all installations.
The rest of the world would continue to use the full version of Windows, and it encouraged content developers to continue to encode music and other digital products in its Windows media format.
simply cute. encouraging developers to use a proprietary codec (i hope i am correct) to create content, when you need to additionally install software for that codec. *hm* a different approach than the one i outlined above, but an effective one, too.
though i have to say, if i was content provider, i'd see absolutely no advantage in using wmp if the player is not bundled with the os, only the drawback of lock-in by microsoft.
hehehe, marketingspeech is doubleplusnonsenseless:-D and, since heavy doublethink (is this the english term for it? unfortunately, i read the book in german) is involved, it should be reserved for the... uhm... elite, for lacking a better word
good, but try reading into such an enormous project, it will take time, a whole lot of precious time, to grasp the functionality, no matter how well documented and commented it is (which it is, i have no doubt about that)
i think the article didn't read "we do this because open source has fewer security flaws". they just want to strengthen the government's trust in their products by letting them peek at their code. there's a huge difference. i guess your argument, if used against microsoft, could backfire quite heavily. they do not make concessions in that regard, i think.
2. who says ms really cares about the disclosure of that code? if it gets into public so much the better, chance for sueing someone later onwards. what do you mean by "most valuable closed source"? supposedly it's such a bunch of messiness of years of development (no offence meant, such things just happen) that it would take aeons to figure out it's actual purpose ("hey, this is a document composer").
i wonder how long it will take to figure the average software analyst / programmer, to understand the code that is released. i mean, the code-base for an office suite is bound to be enormous.
plus... what is the actual outcome supposed to be? will some government-sponsored IT professional point out "this and that is not secure, not reliable, not interoperable" and MS will change it? or is it like "hey, that's fine (and i am not sponsored by MS), everyone should prefer M$ office over Open Office, now that i have seen the revela.... ehm... source-code)"?
someone pointed out that MS might take this as a starter to label itself as "Open Source company", which i personally believe to be utter nonsense, why should MS try to appear as supporter for something it fights with all its power (and money)? i do not think this is what they are aiming at.
summarized, my believe is that the outcome will be an IT "professional" for every participating government feverously pointing out the superiority of MS Office over any other product, proved by source-code examination that cannot be verified or counter-proved by anyone who has not agreed to a NDA.
i really risk getting flamed with this post, but here we go:
i _do_ gratulate her, because i believe she has really earned that position, but:
"...efforts to get more women involved in the MIT community..." i really hope that this is not the reason she got elected president. you see, i think such positions should be awarded according to ability, _regardless_ of the gender. so "because of" is as wrong as "in spite of".
" a step in the right direction for the historically gender-biased institution?" not as long as every time a woman is elected this or that, the fact that she is a woman is more stressed in the reports than the fact that she is doing a good job (or what she has achieved).
in my opinion, one should always prefer to fight on ground he knows well. try to beat the likes of bush on political level, and you are bound to lose.
additionally, the web has a lot of potential in this field. the ability to spread information virtually without boundaries (ruling out china's efforts to proove otherwise).
first: i admit to not having read the whole article, since it really is a bit long for the hour.
second: his notion about "social source" software is really interesting. commonly, the wide-spread use of the internet is said to diminuish face-to-face contact between people. the other side that often is neglected is demonstrated by this article: the internet can also be used to enable communication, as a means for a war against "corruption" and especially "censorship".
what people often forget is that, no matter how big, the internet still is nothing more than a tool. and most tools do not tend to be either "good" or "bad", but achieve their quality by the way they are used.
this is an excellent demonstration on how to do it right.
my 2 pence, n'tn more
this looks like it can really challenge m$'s monopoly on desktop computers one day. looking at their project-roadmap, it sure looks like that's what they are going for (mono, wine, open office, samba,...).
i really hope that they succeed in creating a tightly-knid net between linux desktop developers.
in any case this is a valuable resource for getting information about various graphical environments (though a bit confusing for newbies, i wagger).
hopefully they rise high above their humble goal to be a "collaboration zone".
Slashdot Mirror
how many people earnestly think it is about usability and security that most people choose their software?
i agree, some of the more sophisticated desktop users might be willing to switch, but much more powerful forces for not switching are: a lot of people don't like serious changes. they know windows (though it might suck), not necessarily the OS, but the brand, so they stick with it.
a lot of companies are either bound by contracts or - more importantly - by internal applications that are broken enough only to work with windows (in that case, to be more specific, mostly word, excel and access).
these are, i think, compelling reasons why a large percentage - mark, percentage, not single individuals - will not want to switch to linux because of what the article states.
besides: stuff like the borland c compiler make "c is portable" a joke.
writing oo in c when you have c++ is stupid, you entirely fundamental basics of oo-concepts such as inheritance, encapsulation and the like.
t
.... that: now that we are at it, let's do the following. abandon all that nonsense SI-stuff, instead, we measure everything - the time, the space, our problems - in 'quicks', where one 'quick' is defined as the movement (or the time) the sun spends for moving around the earth once. since this takes some time, we should further divide it into 'microquicks', which is a 1,024th of a quick and into a myonquick, which is a 1,024th of a microquick. thus, a quick is either the distance or the time the sun spends orbiting around the earth once. in a perfect circle.
why does everybody think of computers as a commodity to be used at leisure without any knowledge? if i buy a dvd (not for the computer) i better be prepared to have a dvd-player and some clue on how to connect it to my tv-set, too.
people are able to watch dvds on their computers, even though there is no pre-installed software. granted, it comes along on cd, but audio-players can be embedded into audio-cds, too.
well, i'll send it to the mail you provide in your profile, hope it is accurate :-)
well.... you choose: cookie or gmail-invite :-)
congrats, you found the mistake i place into each of my posts on purpose.
the point is that microsoft claims that it would be difficult and possibly damaging to remove wmp from the os.
now talk about tight coupling between software and os. bad thing in my opinion, plus, it remove the freedom of choice from the user.
furthermore, it implies that un-installing wmp properly is hardly possible, so when you think you've gotten rid of it, it has probably just removed some superficial links or such.
Microsoft has protested in the past that unbundling elements of Windows would be difficult and could even damage its operating system.
hm... i do not mean to flame against microsoft (yet another time), but wtf? why and how should a media player damage the os, if decently programmed? to me, it sounds sensible to separate the operating-system from the applications built upon it, not coupling them to an absurde degree. well, from the point of view "it will be easier to distribute both products that way", it is understandable, of course, but shouldn't a clear design weigh more than marketing advantage? mark the should, which is - sorrowfully - the keyword here.
ah, and by the way... what will microsoft do? if i was them, i'd offer a network-based installation of wmp, which is (semi)automatically triggered after the installation of windows. thus, they do not ship wmp with the os, but effectively bundle it in 90% of all installations.
The rest of the world would continue to use the full version of Windows, and it encouraged content developers to continue to encode music and other digital products in its Windows media format.
simply cute. encouraging developers to use a proprietary codec (i hope i am correct) to create content, when you need to additionally install software for that codec. *hm* a different approach than the one i outlined above, but an effective one, too.
though i have to say, if i was content provider, i'd see absolutely no advantage in using wmp if the player is not bundled with the os, only the drawback of lock-in by microsoft.
just my 2cent
hehe, and i always thought i'd recognize sarcasm if i see it. thanks for pushing me down that cloud :-)
cheers and be sure to mod this entry down :-)
good, but try reading into such an enormous project, it will take time, a whole lot of precious time, to grasp the functionality, no matter how well documented and commented it is (which it is, i have no doubt about that)
2. who says ms really cares about the disclosure of that code? if it gets into public so much the better, chance for sueing someone later onwards. what do you mean by "most valuable closed source"? supposedly it's such a bunch of messiness of years of development (no offence meant, such things just happen) that it would take aeons to figure out it's actual purpose ("hey, this is a document composer").
plus... what is the actual outcome supposed to be? will some government-sponsored IT professional point out "this and that is not secure, not reliable, not interoperable" and MS will change it? or is it like "hey, that's fine (and i am not sponsored by MS), everyone should prefer M$ office over Open Office, now that i have seen the revela.... ehm... source-code)"?
someone pointed out that MS might take this as a starter to label itself as "Open Source company", which i personally believe to be utter nonsense, why should MS try to appear as supporter for something it fights with all its power (and money)? i do not think this is what they are aiming at.
summarized, my believe is that the outcome will be an IT "professional" for every participating government feverously pointing out the superiority of MS Office over any other product, proved by source-code examination that cannot be verified or counter-proved by anyone who has not agreed to a NDA.
try the google cache
i really risk getting flamed with this post, but here we go:
i _do_ gratulate her, because i believe she has really earned that position, but:
"...efforts to get more women involved in the MIT community..."
i really hope that this is not the reason she got elected president. you see, i think such positions should be awarded according to ability, _regardless_ of the gender. so "because of" is as wrong as "in spite of".
" a step in the right direction for the historically gender-biased institution?"
not as long as every time a woman is elected this or that, the fact that she is a woman is more stressed in the reports than the fact that she is doing a good job (or what she has achieved).
why?
in my opinion, one should always prefer to fight on ground he knows well. try to beat the likes of bush on political level, and you are bound to lose.
additionally, the web has a lot of potential in this field. the ability to spread information virtually without boundaries (ruling out china's efforts to proove otherwise).
first: i admit to not having read the whole article, since it really is a bit long for the hour. second: his notion about "social source" software is really interesting. commonly, the wide-spread use of the internet is said to diminuish face-to-face contact between people. the other side that often is neglected is demonstrated by this article: the internet can also be used to enable communication, as a means for a war against "corruption" and especially "censorship". what people often forget is that, no matter how big, the internet still is nothing more than a tool. and most tools do not tend to be either "good" or "bad", but achieve their quality by the way they are used. this is an excellent demonstration on how to do it right. my 2 pence, n'tn more
this looks like it can really challenge m$'s monopoly on desktop computers one day. looking at their project-roadmap, it sure looks like that's what they are going for (mono, wine, open office, samba, ...).
i really hope that they succeed in creating a tightly-knid net between linux desktop developers.
in any case this is a valuable resource for getting information about various graphical environments (though a bit confusing for newbies, i wagger).
hopefully they rise high above their humble goal to be a "collaboration zone".