Because islands can't lose land mass. The only reason islands are "created" or are "deleted" (hehe) is the sea level...
Plus, we all know that anything (read: including localized events) that COULD come from warming global temperatures is caused by "global warming" which is really AGW. On the other hand, any localized events that appear to contradict AGW are just localized events and can't enter into the debate.
I take it you didn't try Windows 7 beta, nor the RC then... I tried both, and they were far better than the Opera 10.50 beta I tried pretty recently, which crashed in the first few hours. And I'm not an Opera hater, I'm actually eagerly waiting 10.50 to come out on Linux (grrr, hurry up).
I'm guessing that you didn't, because you reference it as something set in stone from the past and not something based on your recent experience with a specific product? ("An MS RC") I haven't tried a whole lot of MS beta products in the past, though I have tried a few. I lied the Windows 7 beta and RC better than my XP box, and actually moved my laptop from openSuSE 11.1/Ubuntu 9.04 to Windows 7 (RC) because it was faster and more stable.
I may as well retort that OSS betas are, at best, alpha versions. I could cite some specific examples that may even lend credence to that, too, like KDE 4.x (until the most recent version, which I've tried and actually found workable, though I tend to prefer gnome over KDE 4.x).
"Worse" ? I prefer the shareware model, actually, to typical retail-ware.:) Being able to try out a game - not just a demo but part of the real game - is great. Most demos are like that, but shareware - in my experience - tends to have longer "demos."
I'm over 18, and I used computers before HTML existed as well... but I was referring to current-day activities. I agree, my comment was ambiguous, but in the context of the discussion (consumer experience, web browsing), I'd say it should be fairly obvious what I was talking about...:)
I should have rephrased, but I still think my point is valid. Most consumers do not want an OS without a built-in HTML renderer... and most would find the OS unusable, depending on what they did to it, if it lacks said built-in HTML renderer...
As someone said, a package management system is certainly an answer, but forcing that on MS just because you don't like IE being built in would be even worse than what the EU did do, hehe.
Touche for the joke anyways, but we're talking about replacing Windows XP, Vista, and 7 with Linux for a given random consumer. We're not talking about a system administrator in a production environment.
I use wget, I use ftp/sftp, ssh/scp, telnet, etc. But I don't expect the average consumer to have to know how to use those command line utilities just to browse the web on their shiny new computer.
So, force MS to change their application installation management to satisfy this? That seems kinda extreme... now forcing companies to use a centralized package management system. Which everyone would complain about, because then MS is controlling what packages can be installed on the system... yeah, that'd go over well with the EU too;)
I appreciate your post... mainly because you (1) did not refer to Microsoft as M$ and (2) I basically agree with you. However...
Many of us believe that a Linux distribution with a decent default configuration is inherently more secure and less exploitable than the average Windows system that ships with new PCs.
Most people don't care about that until they have problems because of it.
The wide variety of distributions combined with the extreme configurability of each, down to the ability to replace most core system components with alternative implementations, means that Linux tends to avoid the problems that come with a monoculture.
The wide variety is also a reason more people don't use Linux, IMO. It's not like there's just one "Linux" that people can use. And the configurability of each one can sometimes throw people off, as well. Plus, if they try a distro that is NOT as user friendly, they will view all Linux distros that way. "Oh, I tried Linux and it was too hard to use." I'm not making this up, I know people that have done this. Even computer-savvy people. "If you use Windows, everyone will be able to use it; if you use Linux, only you and some other geeky people will." It takes a while for people to change their views about something once they have that first impression, unfortunately.
Centralized package managers make it much easier to keep all of your software up-to-date.
Most people don't want to be bothered with this. Which is actually a plus on the Linux side, to some extent... but again; most people simply don't care, IMO.
Also, Linux distributions are not known for abusing their update mechanisms by pushing WGA and other non-customer-friendly components. They have no "piracy" fears that would tempt them to do so.
Most people I know do not think of WGA as an abuse.
It amazed me that people weren't updating, and I think the lack of trust towards Microsoft has much to do with that. If those people did trust Microsoft to provide updates that are high-quality and only in the customers' interests, then there'd be no reason not to allow automatic Windows Updates. For these reasons, it's both easier to keep all software updated in Linux and more likely that users will do so.
I disagree. I've found that most people have unpatched or unupdated machines because they simply don't care or don't even know what the risk is. They don't view their computers as it's own little ecosystem that needs to be updated and patched to keep it up-to-date with protections from the most recent vulnerabilities, security holes, attacks, etc... they view their computer as this machine, sorta like a typewriter, that they use to check their e-mail. Which is why they are always shocked that they got viruses, spyware, malware, or that their hard drive crashed. I have never talked to someone that mistrusts Microsoft any more than they mistrust any other corporation. More people mistrust Toyota FAR more right now than Microsoft, in my experience.
And the people I know that ARE afraid of updating would just as afraid of Linux updates... because they don't know why that dialog is popping up, not because they mistrust Microsoft or "Canonical."
It'd be nice if no single OS had an overwhelming majority of marketshare. I don't think there'd be compatibility issues.
Agreed... because then it'd be financially necessary to support all your competitors...
Unfortunately, and I say that honestly, I don't feel that Linux has gotten quite user friendly enough. There are still some bumps, IMO, that are major issues. Right now. Some of the main ones that I found when I last tried it out on some of my acquaintances were (1) input devices (the mouse was exceedingly sensitive and the settings didn't get saved for whatever strange reason), (2) sound devices (sometimes they just stopped
Have you ever tried to use an operating system without a built-in html renderer? Or a built-in filesystem browser?
How would you download Firefox if you couldn't get online in the first place? I know, FTP. Yes, the first thing I want to do - in the name of protecting and enhancing the consumer experience - is to make my parents type in an obscure ftp command do an unknown website so they can download a browser. All OS's these days have figured out that part of the "consumer experience" is minimal setup required to do basic tasks.
I, for one, am glad that if I choose to try another browser - say, Opera - and dislike it and uninstall it, I am still able to access the internet because Microsoft provided me with the ability to view HTML without having to download another application. Yes. It enhances my experience. It makes me not have to worry that I'm going to bork my computer by uninstalling a web browser and not HAVE a web browser left to go download a new web browser...
Now, if you wanted to complain about Microsoft and have me agree with you - which you don't care about, and for good reason, since I'm just a random slashdot poster;) hehe - I would complain about the OEM/don't-offer-other-OS's-and-we'll-give-you-a-discount things. Those are ones I get upset about. Getting upset about IE? I could care less, honestly, and I think the EU has bigger problems on its plate than MSIE...:)
No, we shouldn't, because we really dislike spam - thus we feel that we can adjust our punitive damages required to fit our dislike. On the other hand, we like illegal file sharing, therefore we feel that punitive damages there should be zero.
At least, I'm fairly certain that's how a lot of people's "logic" goes.:)
It's not just a "name" though. It's the name of a specific book that has been published. I assume it's trademarked or copywritten or whatever the correct term is, and it's not in the PD.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, you were going to mod a post insightful until you read the first two words of the post? Hm. ;)
6) Invade. ;)
Ensure. Unless you mean those input devices actually insure your computer. Maybe that was part of the health care bill?
but generally it is accurat
For non-controversial subjects.
and ignore this "island" the way we ignore all the other sandbars and ephemera.
Ignoring something neither gets you votes nor money.
Because islands can't lose land mass. The only reason islands are "created" or are "deleted" (hehe) is the sea level...
Plus, we all know that anything (read: including localized events) that COULD come from warming global temperatures is caused by "global warming" which is really AGW. On the other hand, any localized events that appear to contradict AGW are just localized events and can't enter into the debate.
Me? Cynical?
Chrome is in the list of targeted browsers, but apparently nobody tried it...
I use it as my main browser at home but I prefer Safari or Chrome
This sentence is strange.
That depends on who or what is measuring significance, and who or what "significance" is relative to.
Wooster? Don't you mean Jeeves?
another was followed internationally, their editorial meetings were bugged, and recorded.
So, in other words, there is going to be a leak about how wikileak editorial meetings go?
I take it you didn't try Windows 7 beta, nor the RC then... I tried both, and they were far better than the Opera 10.50 beta I tried pretty recently, which crashed in the first few hours. And I'm not an Opera hater, I'm actually eagerly waiting 10.50 to come out on Linux (grrr, hurry up).
I'm guessing that you didn't, because you reference it as something set in stone from the past and not something based on your recent experience with a specific product? ("An MS RC") I haven't tried a whole lot of MS beta products in the past, though I have tried a few. I lied the Windows 7 beta and RC better than my XP box, and actually moved my laptop from openSuSE 11.1/Ubuntu 9.04 to Windows 7 (RC) because it was faster and more stable.
I may as well retort that OSS betas are, at best, alpha versions. I could cite some specific examples that may even lend credence to that, too, like KDE 4.x (until the most recent version, which I've tried and actually found workable, though I tend to prefer gnome over KDE 4.x).
Perhaps in the past. Specifically, I'm thinking about Windows 7? The Beta and RC were both free :) Maybe it just depends on the product.
If full price == $0, yes...
"Worse" ? I prefer the shareware model, actually, to typical retail-ware. :) Being able to try out a game - not just a demo but part of the real game - is great. Most demos are like that, but shareware - in my experience - tends to have longer "demos."
I'm over 18, and I used computers before HTML existed as well... but I was referring to current-day activities. I agree, my comment was ambiguous, but in the context of the discussion (consumer experience, web browsing), I'd say it should be fairly obvious what I was talking about... :)
I should have rephrased, but I still think my point is valid. Most consumers do not want an OS without a built-in HTML renderer... and most would find the OS unusable, depending on what they did to it, if it lacks said built-in HTML renderer...
As someone said, a package management system is certainly an answer, but forcing that on MS just because you don't like IE being built in would be even worse than what the EU did do, hehe.
Touche for the joke anyways, but we're talking about replacing Windows XP, Vista, and 7 with Linux for a given random consumer. We're not talking about a system administrator in a production environment.
I use wget, I use ftp/sftp, ssh/scp, telnet, etc. But I don't expect the average consumer to have to know how to use those command line utilities just to browse the web on their shiny new computer.
So, force MS to change their application installation management to satisfy this? That seems kinda extreme... now forcing companies to use a centralized package management system. Which everyone would complain about, because then MS is controlling what packages can be installed on the system... yeah, that'd go over well with the EU too ;)
I appreciate your post... mainly because you (1) did not refer to Microsoft as M$ and (2) I basically agree with you. However...
Many of us believe that a Linux distribution with a decent default configuration is inherently more secure and less exploitable than the average Windows system that ships with new PCs.
Most people don't care about that until they have problems because of it.
The wide variety of distributions combined with the extreme configurability of each, down to the ability to replace most core system components with alternative implementations, means that Linux tends to avoid the problems that come with a monoculture.
The wide variety is also a reason more people don't use Linux, IMO. It's not like there's just one "Linux" that people can use. And the configurability of each one can sometimes throw people off, as well. Plus, if they try a distro that is NOT as user friendly, they will view all Linux distros that way. "Oh, I tried Linux and it was too hard to use." I'm not making this up, I know people that have done this. Even computer-savvy people. "If you use Windows, everyone will be able to use it; if you use Linux, only you and some other geeky people will." It takes a while for people to change their views about something once they have that first impression, unfortunately.
Centralized package managers make it much easier to keep all of your software up-to-date.
Most people don't want to be bothered with this. Which is actually a plus on the Linux side, to some extent... but again; most people simply don't care, IMO.
Also, Linux distributions are not known for abusing their update mechanisms by pushing WGA and other non-customer-friendly components. They have no "piracy" fears that would tempt them to do so.
Most people I know do not think of WGA as an abuse.
It amazed me that people weren't updating, and I think the lack of trust towards Microsoft has much to do with that. If those people did trust Microsoft to provide updates that are high-quality and only in the customers' interests, then there'd be no reason not to allow automatic Windows Updates. For these reasons, it's both easier to keep all software updated in Linux and more likely that users will do so.
I disagree. I've found that most people have unpatched or unupdated machines because they simply don't care or don't even know what the risk is. They don't view their computers as it's own little ecosystem that needs to be updated and patched to keep it up-to-date with protections from the most recent vulnerabilities, security holes, attacks, etc... they view their computer as this machine, sorta like a typewriter, that they use to check their e-mail. Which is why they are always shocked that they got viruses, spyware, malware, or that their hard drive crashed. I have never talked to someone that mistrusts Microsoft any more than they mistrust any other corporation. More people mistrust Toyota FAR more right now than Microsoft, in my experience.
And the people I know that ARE afraid of updating would just as afraid of Linux updates... because they don't know why that dialog is popping up, not because they mistrust Microsoft or "Canonical."
It'd be nice if no single OS had an overwhelming majority of marketshare. I don't think there'd be compatibility issues.
Agreed... because then it'd be financially necessary to support all your competitors...
Unfortunately, and I say that honestly, I don't feel that Linux has gotten quite user friendly enough. There are still some bumps, IMO, that are major issues. Right now. Some of the main ones that I found when I last tried it out on some of my acquaintances were (1) input devices (the mouse was exceedingly sensitive and the settings didn't get saved for whatever strange reason), (2) sound devices (sometimes they just stopped
Have you ever tried to use an operating system without a built-in html renderer? Or a built-in filesystem browser?
How would you download Firefox if you couldn't get online in the first place? I know, FTP. Yes, the first thing I want to do - in the name of protecting and enhancing the consumer experience - is to make my parents type in an obscure ftp command do an unknown website so they can download a browser. All OS's these days have figured out that part of the "consumer experience" is minimal setup required to do basic tasks.
I, for one, am glad that if I choose to try another browser - say, Opera - and dislike it and uninstall it, I am still able to access the internet because Microsoft provided me with the ability to view HTML without having to download another application. Yes. It enhances my experience. It makes me not have to worry that I'm going to bork my computer by uninstalling a web browser and not HAVE a web browser left to go download a new web browser...
Now, if you wanted to complain about Microsoft and have me agree with you - which you don't care about, and for good reason, since I'm just a random slashdot poster ;) hehe - I would complain about the OEM/don't-offer-other-OS's-and-we'll-give-you-a-discount things. Those are ones I get upset about. Getting upset about IE? I could care less, honestly, and I think the EU has bigger problems on its plate than MSIE... :)
Oh oh oh, I misread the summary even, doh. Sequel to The Hobbit.
No, we shouldn't, because we really dislike spam - thus we feel that we can adjust our punitive damages required to fit our dislike. On the other hand, we like illegal file sharing, therefore we feel that punitive damages there should be zero.
At least, I'm fairly certain that's how a lot of people's "logic" goes. :)
In the Bush days? You're wrong - even now, Bush is still responsible for everything happening. Unless it's good. Depending on who you ask, of course.
(Yes, this is an exaggerated statement, but I am trying to make a point.)
Interesting. I did not know they didn't revoke citizenship for treachery. Er, obvious that I didn't know that ;)
It's not just a "name" though. It's the name of a specific book that has been published. I assume it's trademarked or copywritten or whatever the correct term is, and it's not in the PD.