Don't get too excited. I worked at Matalan, they were never using Windows for the tills in the first place. In fact, they were using QNX Embedded, version 6.2 as I recall. How do I know this? I was a cashier, and when the tills booted up they told you!
There is however, a significant increase in the number of violent crimes and gun-related violence since handguns were banned. Let's face it, the only people who handed in their handguns during the amnesty were, by-and-large, law-abiding folks who wouldn't have used them in a criminal act anyway. Now, the only people who have handguns are the criminals, and they were never going to obey a ban in the first place.
Speak for yourself, but I certainly don't feel any safer walking the streets after dark in the UK, and for the record I don't even live in a city where traditionally crime is supposed to be higher. Anti-social behaviour is on the up, gang-related violence is on the up, casual muggings and violence is WAY on the up - and yeah, car crime is on the up as well.
The UK justice system is in a horrible mess, with a lot of prisoners getting better living conditions behind bars than they do when they're on the streets - no wonder they do their level best to get put back inside as soon as they're let free. The European Human Rights convention is the biggest problem for us because it basically pulls the rug out from under the law and restricts the available punishments for offenders. I could go into much more detail, like the changes I'd like to see, but I really can't be bothered.
I think you'd be right on both issues. On the first part at least I think MS are taking some steps in the right direction, but only time will tell whether they're serious about it or not.
Second part, you're probably right as well. To an extent Windows has to be given a lot of input from the marketing side because people do have to go out and buy it, rather than it being free. To be honest I'm dubious about people saying Linux is ready for the desktop - some distros are further along than others on that one, Ubuntu being my preferred choice whenever I have to use Linux. Maybe we'll see the needed improvements on that score soon, I guess only time will tell there as well.
Ok. Let's throw this one out there. If you had the power to recommend what Microsoft should do on this issue, what options would you suggest? For my part, I would break as many links as possible between IE and Media Player and Windows - turn the OS more into a platform rather than an integrated system. And then offer both as an option during the installation process. I don't know if I'd go so far as to recommend including competitors software, but as long as distributors were able to do so, the problem would be solved.
Trouble is of course, no matter how much MS turned around and made these sort of changes, there would still be a hardcore of people who consider them the Evil Empire(tm)!
It seems to me though that the best decisions MS have made are the ones that have been made by the developers when they've been allowed to get on with things, and the worst ones have been those made entirely by the marketing department!
Ok, I see your point, and the point of the other person who replied to my message. But to an extent it doesn't matter: when people think of Linux, they don't think of the kernel, they think of the distributions, and to a fault, they all include some form of media player. The end user in most cases (and Slashdot users aren't really a fair basis for comparison here) doesn't give a damn whether the competition has been allowed to include their own media player, or indeed whether it's open source or proprietory, as long as they're able to play their MP3s.
Wouldn't you be more than a little frustrated these days if you fired up your system for the first time after installation and weren't able to play an audio file, or even browse the web? Microsoft may have been unfair to integrate them in the first place, but we do now expect this functionality to be there.
As always, this is just my opinion and I hope you take it as such. I'm not here to get people riled up.
This is EXACTLY one of my points! Can Linux compete on a level playing field? By all means, strip Windows down to it's bare basics, but if you're going to do that, Linux and MacOS and all the other operating systems should be required to do the same.
I see your point. Although Windows only costs money if you pay for it, which a lot of people don't. I was mostly playing devil's advocate in this case.
Not quite, but at the time, it was the most popular. I know my computing history well enough to know that Windows wasn't the first - it was just the first to be really popular.
By the same token, you could say that other operating systems shouldn't have been developed, since Windows was already such a standard.
Face it, right now Adobe have the market for PDF all to themselves - granted there are open source creators and readers, but it's all using their format. Anything that forces them to compete can only be a good thing, particularly with their purchase of Macromedia meaning they now own the two most popular document formats on the Web (excluding HTML and XML, naturally): PDF, and Flash.
That's probably because the people who are inclined towards the middle ground realise there's no point posting because the zealots on either side will never listen.
I think the same rules should apply universally. If MS aren't allowed to provide a media player with Windows, Linux distributions and MacOS should also not be allowed to provide one as standard. Same with an internet browser.
It's only fair to have a level playing field.
For the record, I think MS were right about needing to include IE with all versions of Windows - can you imagine not being able to use the internet as soon as you get your new computer set up? That would suck.
In that case, more power to you. I was assuming that you just blew your top at him and totally ignored him from then on, which would indeed have been immature.
I'm fortunate at my uni that most of the lecturers are willing to listen to reasoned opinions instead of rejecting options out of hand. Every time their decisions have been questioned, they've reacted by explaining how those decisions were reached.
You didn't show him the good reasons for using Apache then? Isn't it a slightly childish attitude to not speak to someone ever again just because their opinions differ from your own?
You could, for example, have pointed out that open-source, free software is a good way to save money for businesses so that they can spend it on hiring better webmasters;)
Well I slipstreamed mine into my XP installation CD, so I know as soon as I install Windows I'm protected. Haven't got the precise link, but there's a guide to doing that linked from http://unattended.msfn.org - hope that comes in useful. It's a relatively simple process actually.
To be fair, if you managed to get your freshly installed system nuked within 4 minutes you can't have bothered to run a firewall or to install SP2! There is no way your system should pick up that many viruses that quickly, unless of course you're going to some very dubious sites. I think you're just spreading more anti-MS crap here, which is no surprise - this is Slashdot after all!
Of course, if you check the terms and conditions of use for virtually anything these days, you'll find that is specifically forbids lending the product, whatever it may be, to anyone:P But who obeys that sort of crap anyway?
Most games still sell well despite piracy - at least, most decent games. I'm not talking so much about a percentage of profits, in any case - just a bonus if a game sells over x hundred thousand units. That way, if you've produced a game that really is amazing, and sells shedloads (like, for example, The Sims) - you get an extra bonus for your work on it.
A poor man will miss it more. If you have $10 million, you won't think twice about going out and spending that on a new car, etc. If you have $10,000 - you might have to wait to get that car. The more money you have, combined with money managers and accountants, makes it possible for you to live off the interest on the money you already have.
So is it ok then for the shareholders to make several million dollars out of something they have had no part at all in creating?
I'm a games programming student, and I'm definitely looking for a company that will give me a bonus for games that sell exceptionally well - rather than paying a flat rate! It's only fair really!
But who decides what they need to be efficient? As a programmer myself, I know already that my working methods are different from other programmers. The end result might be the same, or similar, but the way in which I get there is different. So how could you say, "this is what you need to be efficient" in a situation like this? The result of that is forcing everyone to work in the same way, turning your staff, whose creative abilities you RELY on, to act as clones, stifling those talents in the interests of Efficiency. Sorry, doesn't work.
Windows itself is not flawed for this reason. You're far too much into Unix to understand, but 90% of the reason you need Administrator rights to use much of Windows effectively is because of bad programming practices in other, third-party companies. Games companies in particular, with CD checks and protection that REQUIRE Admin rights because of the way they are accessing the hardware, or because they insist on trying to write to the program directory - which under XP Home is NOT allowed unless you have Admin rights. This should be considered a VERY VERY bad thing in my opinion, but is unavoidable (at least in the case of copy protection) because of the nature of the checks. The only thing that will fix this is a major re-education of developers.
For reference, I'm not against Unix per se. I have used it, as I have Linux, and BeOS, and QNX also. Of them all, I've found Windows consistently more useful and easy to operate. After all, just because I am a geek with knowledge of development and command lines and system/network administration doesn't mean I want to or should have to use that knowledge just to perform simple tasks, like play games or even just install drivers for my hardware.
And, as other people have pointed out - the Admin accounts that the guys and gals at Microsoft are being given access to are just for their own machines, not for the network....
Slashdot Mirror
....You'll be rewarded in heaven?
That sound familiar?
Don't get too excited. I worked at Matalan, they were never using Windows for the tills in the first place. In fact, they were using QNX Embedded, version 6.2 as I recall. How do I know this? I was a cashier, and when the tills booted up they told you!
There is however, a significant increase in the number of violent crimes and gun-related violence since handguns were banned. Let's face it, the only people who handed in their handguns during the amnesty were, by-and-large, law-abiding folks who wouldn't have used them in a criminal act anyway. Now, the only people who have handguns are the criminals, and they were never going to obey a ban in the first place. Speak for yourself, but I certainly don't feel any safer walking the streets after dark in the UK, and for the record I don't even live in a city where traditionally crime is supposed to be higher. Anti-social behaviour is on the up, gang-related violence is on the up, casual muggings and violence is WAY on the up - and yeah, car crime is on the up as well. The UK justice system is in a horrible mess, with a lot of prisoners getting better living conditions behind bars than they do when they're on the streets - no wonder they do their level best to get put back inside as soon as they're let free. The European Human Rights convention is the biggest problem for us because it basically pulls the rug out from under the law and restricts the available punishments for offenders. I could go into much more detail, like the changes I'd like to see, but I really can't be bothered.
I think you'd be right on both issues. On the first part at least I think MS are taking some steps in the right direction, but only time will tell whether they're serious about it or not. Second part, you're probably right as well. To an extent Windows has to be given a lot of input from the marketing side because people do have to go out and buy it, rather than it being free. To be honest I'm dubious about people saying Linux is ready for the desktop - some distros are further along than others on that one, Ubuntu being my preferred choice whenever I have to use Linux. Maybe we'll see the needed improvements on that score soon, I guess only time will tell there as well.
Ok. Let's throw this one out there. If you had the power to recommend what Microsoft should do on this issue, what options would you suggest? For my part, I would break as many links as possible between IE and Media Player and Windows - turn the OS more into a platform rather than an integrated system. And then offer both as an option during the installation process. I don't know if I'd go so far as to recommend including competitors software, but as long as distributors were able to do so, the problem would be solved.
Trouble is of course, no matter how much MS turned around and made these sort of changes, there would still be a hardcore of people who consider them the Evil Empire(tm)!
It seems to me though that the best decisions MS have made are the ones that have been made by the developers when they've been allowed to get on with things, and the worst ones have been those made entirely by the marketing department!
Ok, I see your point, and the point of the other person who replied to my message. But to an extent it doesn't matter: when people think of Linux, they don't think of the kernel, they think of the distributions, and to a fault, they all include some form of media player. The end user in most cases (and Slashdot users aren't really a fair basis for comparison here) doesn't give a damn whether the competition has been allowed to include their own media player, or indeed whether it's open source or proprietory, as long as they're able to play their MP3s.
Wouldn't you be more than a little frustrated these days if you fired up your system for the first time after installation and weren't able to play an audio file, or even browse the web? Microsoft may have been unfair to integrate them in the first place, but we do now expect this functionality to be there.
As always, this is just my opinion and I hope you take it as such. I'm not here to get people riled up.
This is EXACTLY one of my points! Can Linux compete on a level playing field? By all means, strip Windows down to it's bare basics, but if you're going to do that, Linux and MacOS and all the other operating systems should be required to do the same.
I see your point. Although Windows only costs money if you pay for it, which a lot of people don't. I was mostly playing devil's advocate in this case.
Not quite, but at the time, it was the most popular. I know my computing history well enough to know that Windows wasn't the first - it was just the first to be really popular.
By the same token, you could say that other operating systems shouldn't have been developed, since Windows was already such a standard. Face it, right now Adobe have the market for PDF all to themselves - granted there are open source creators and readers, but it's all using their format. Anything that forces them to compete can only be a good thing, particularly with their purchase of Macromedia meaning they now own the two most popular document formats on the Web (excluding HTML and XML, naturally): PDF, and Flash.
That's probably because the people who are inclined towards the middle ground realise there's no point posting because the zealots on either side will never listen.
I think the same rules should apply universally. If MS aren't allowed to provide a media player with Windows, Linux distributions and MacOS should also not be allowed to provide one as standard. Same with an internet browser. It's only fair to have a level playing field. For the record, I think MS were right about needing to include IE with all versions of Windows - can you imagine not being able to use the internet as soon as you get your new computer set up? That would suck.
Short History was very good. Very interesting too. I like Bill Bryson's style.
In that case, more power to you. I was assuming that you just blew your top at him and totally ignored him from then on, which would indeed have been immature. I'm fortunate at my uni that most of the lecturers are willing to listen to reasoned opinions instead of rejecting options out of hand. Every time their decisions have been questioned, they've reacted by explaining how those decisions were reached.
You didn't show him the good reasons for using Apache then? Isn't it a slightly childish attitude to not speak to someone ever again just because their opinions differ from your own? You could, for example, have pointed out that open-source, free software is a good way to save money for businesses so that they can spend it on hiring better webmasters ;)
Well I slipstreamed mine into my XP installation CD, so I know as soon as I install Windows I'm protected. Haven't got the precise link, but there's a guide to doing that linked from http://unattended.msfn.org - hope that comes in useful. It's a relatively simple process actually.
To be fair, if you managed to get your freshly installed system nuked within 4 minutes you can't have bothered to run a firewall or to install SP2! There is no way your system should pick up that many viruses that quickly, unless of course you're going to some very dubious sites. I think you're just spreading more anti-MS crap here, which is no surprise - this is Slashdot after all!
Of course, if you check the terms and conditions of use for virtually anything these days, you'll find that is specifically forbids lending the product, whatever it may be, to anyone :P But who obeys that sort of crap anyway?
Most games still sell well despite piracy - at least, most decent games. I'm not talking so much about a percentage of profits, in any case - just a bonus if a game sells over x hundred thousand units. That way, if you've produced a game that really is amazing, and sells shedloads (like, for example, The Sims) - you get an extra bonus for your work on it.
A poor man will miss it more. If you have $10 million, you won't think twice about going out and spending that on a new car, etc. If you have $10,000 - you might have to wait to get that car. The more money you have, combined with money managers and accountants, makes it possible for you to live off the interest on the money you already have.
So is it ok then for the shareholders to make several million dollars out of something they have had no part at all in creating? I'm a games programming student, and I'm definitely looking for a company that will give me a bonus for games that sell exceptionally well - rather than paying a flat rate! It's only fair really!
But who decides what they need to be efficient? As a programmer myself, I know already that my working methods are different from other programmers. The end result might be the same, or similar, but the way in which I get there is different. So how could you say, "this is what you need to be efficient" in a situation like this? The result of that is forcing everyone to work in the same way, turning your staff, whose creative abilities you RELY on, to act as clones, stifling those talents in the interests of Efficiency. Sorry, doesn't work.
Windows itself is not flawed for this reason. You're far too much into Unix to understand, but 90% of the reason you need Administrator rights to use much of Windows effectively is because of bad programming practices in other, third-party companies. Games companies in particular, with CD checks and protection that REQUIRE Admin rights because of the way they are accessing the hardware, or because they insist on trying to write to the program directory - which under XP Home is NOT allowed unless you have Admin rights. This should be considered a VERY VERY bad thing in my opinion, but is unavoidable (at least in the case of copy protection) because of the nature of the checks. The only thing that will fix this is a major re-education of developers.
For reference, I'm not against Unix per se. I have used it, as I have Linux, and BeOS, and QNX also. Of them all, I've found Windows consistently more useful and easy to operate. After all, just because I am a geek with knowledge of development and command lines and system/network administration doesn't mean I want to or should have to use that knowledge just to perform simple tasks, like play games or even just install drivers for my hardware.
And, as other people have pointed out - the Admin accounts that the guys and gals at Microsoft are being given access to are just for their own machines, not for the network....