Sadly, Windows fails on all three accounts. Not because you technically cannot do these things with Windows, but because the *average user* can't do them for very long with a Windows box. Windows is easy to learn - but requires and *expert* to keep running. Linux requires an expert to install, but is very easy to use from that point on.*
Hmmmm. Except when freezes occur. Due to either the OS or various drivers. Just like the freezes that occur due to the OS or drivers in Windows...
Worse, Windows makes them difficult for the people around them - they assume we (the "experts") know everything there is to know about a provably obsolete operating system, and expect that we'll fix their problem for free, in 10 minutes. But it gets worse. Windows users infuriate those of us who actually know a thing or two about computers:
Infuriate? So, ignorance is infuriating? Maybe this is the attitude that the OP was referring to?
No, it is *NOT* normal for a computer to crash on a regular basis.
Not anymore, anyways... I agree. Neither Windows (since XP, at least SP3) nor Linux crash much.
Getting infected with a virus is only inevitable for Windows users. Explaining to a Windows user that my OS is more secure by design leaves them with blank stares. They simply can't comprehend the notion of a computer system that doesn't need antivirus software. And we have Windows to thank for this - Mac zealots don't seem to have this handicap.
That's because Mac zealots think their OS is unbreakable, too (nevermind the fact that I've seen numerous crashes with Mac OSX). Regarding "inevitable for Windows users," that's simply wrong. I haven't had a virus on my computer since, oh, around nine years. Is Unix more secure by design? Yeah. But users that open smilie packs and respond to Nigerian princes are still going to have their systems messed up. Unless Unix somehow detects ignorance or stupidity and stops it?
My wife has no problem using Ubuntu. But I have relatives who insist on using Windows, only to call me for support when something *BAD* happens to their Windows install.
Mine doesn't either, but finds Windows easier. And, to tell the truth... flash video and audio (youtube? pandora?) run better in Windows, networking is somewhat flaky in Ubuntu sometimes (it doesn't like getting an IP address from our network all the time, sometimes I have to disable/enable)... all in all, Windows actually has provided her with a better experience than Ubuntu 9.04. More secure or more stable? Maybe not. But when you use the computer for 5 hours a day and have a techie husband that knows about viruses and whatnot, then why suffer through a less-easily-used OS for your daily tasks?
No, the real issue is who gets to define hate speech. For example, is a church teaching what the Bible states about homosexuals hate speech? Is that "degrading" or "deterring?" Some say yes. Should churches not be allowed to do this? This is something Canadian churches have wondered about, I know.
I wonder if the students were reprimanded in any way. It would seem that, for the most part, university "free speech" tends toward the PC side. Ok, not "tends." Is.
Try speaking out against abortion at a university some day.
Not a true statement. Yes, disdain for extramarital sex. Disdain for sex in marriage? Not at all. They believed it was a gift from God and sacred and meant only for marriage. Which is likely why you don't hear too much about it. They didn't talk about it too much publically. Why should they? They didn't publically write about their finances much, either. Maybe they didn't think it was particularly the business of the public?
I suppose it's more brave to respond with name calling.;)
Anyways, to answer the question: do I know what it's like? No, not personally. Have I had family members with terminal diseases? Yes. One in particular... she wanted to spend as much time as she could with her loving family. She never complained about the obvious pain she was in. She was alone for the last 20 years of her life (her husband died much before her). Her wits were almost completely with her, yet she lived in a rest home surrounded by many who were "losing it." I would call that just as brave, if not more so.
Am I saying there is not some sense of bravery, as the original poster said? No, I'm not saying that. On the other hand, we sometimes have a very, very messed up idea about bravery. We define bravery, typically, as kind of... haphazard, not caring about what happens to you, etc. I would say that bravery is more the willingness to do what you know, or at least "feel," to be right, even though it will hurt, cause you pain, and be difficult. It's not not-being-afraid... it's doing it even though you are afraid. As Don Knotts said in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, "...doing one's duty no matter what is scaring him personally." Funny movie, but I think he hit it pretty much right on.
I won't judge what the co-founder of EMC's reasons were. But it sure sounded like the original poster was saying that if we all had the same "bravery" that this guy had, we'd all "check out on our own terms."
That is why I asked for the definition. I don't call avoidance of pain bravery, I'd call that human instinct. Facing the unknown isn't necessarily bravery, either. Throwing yourself to fate could be considered stupidity. Was it? I can't say, I don't know what was going on in his mind.
[sarcasm] He's not just the President! He's going to change the world! And I know he can be trusted, just listen to him. I don't mind him having the power to turn off the internet for a little while if that's what we need to do to change! [insert some comment about the "previous 8 years" here] [/sarcasm]
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to know what browser and what computer he was using. In other words: what bias if any?
It'd also be interesting to know his monitor resolution...
Which means that only rich inventors are able to accomplish something. Great!
Sadly, Windows fails on all three accounts. Not because you technically cannot do these things with Windows, but because the *average user* can't do them for very long with a Windows box. Windows is easy to learn - but requires and *expert* to keep running. Linux requires an expert to install, but is very easy to use from that point on.*
Hmmmm. Except when freezes occur. Due to either the OS or various drivers. Just like the freezes that occur due to the OS or drivers in Windows...
Worse, Windows makes them difficult for the people around them - they assume we (the "experts") know everything there is to know about a provably obsolete operating system, and expect that we'll fix their problem for free, in 10 minutes. But it gets worse. Windows users infuriate those of us who actually know a thing or two about computers:
Infuriate? So, ignorance is infuriating? Maybe this is the attitude that the OP was referring to?
No, it is *NOT* normal for a computer to crash on a regular basis.
Not anymore, anyways... I agree. Neither Windows (since XP, at least SP3) nor Linux crash much.
Getting infected with a virus is only inevitable for Windows users. Explaining to a Windows user that my OS is more secure by design leaves them with blank stares. They simply can't comprehend the notion of a computer system that doesn't need antivirus software. And we have Windows to thank for this - Mac zealots don't seem to have this handicap.
That's because Mac zealots think their OS is unbreakable, too (nevermind the fact that I've seen numerous crashes with Mac OSX). Regarding "inevitable for Windows users," that's simply wrong. I haven't had a virus on my computer since, oh, around nine years. Is Unix more secure by design? Yeah. But users that open smilie packs and respond to Nigerian princes are still going to have their systems messed up. Unless Unix somehow detects ignorance or stupidity and stops it?
My wife has no problem using Ubuntu. But I have relatives who insist on using Windows, only to call me for support when something *BAD* happens to their Windows install.
Mine doesn't either, but finds Windows easier. And, to tell the truth... flash video and audio (youtube? pandora?) run better in Windows, networking is somewhat flaky in Ubuntu sometimes (it doesn't like getting an IP address from our network all the time, sometimes I have to disable/enable)... all in all, Windows actually has provided her with a better experience than Ubuntu 9.04. More secure or more stable? Maybe not. But when you use the computer for 5 hours a day and have a techie husband that knows about viruses and whatnot, then why suffer through a less-easily-used OS for your daily tasks?
There's oil in my car?
Hm. How do we know cows feel stress due to living conditions?
I know I've seen enough developers on here discussing how easy of a problem it is to solve.
I'm involved in the software development cycle as a tester. I hear that a lot, too. It never seems to be true.
I have a high-end PC, a netbook, an ebook reader, and a smart phone.
And money.
Oracle sells Aflac insurance plans??
Spelling is irreleveant when you are *ahem* fired up.
No, the real issue is who gets to define hate speech. For example, is a church teaching what the Bible states about homosexuals hate speech? Is that "degrading" or "deterring?" Some say yes. Should churches not be allowed to do this? This is something Canadian churches have wondered about, I know.
Public university, I assume?
I wonder if the students were reprimanded in any way. It would seem that, for the most part, university "free speech" tends toward the PC side. Ok, not "tends." Is.
Try speaking out against abortion at a university some day.
Quite eavesdropping. You're stalking.
... you insensitive clod?
Not a true statement. Yes, disdain for extramarital sex. Disdain for sex in marriage? Not at all. They believed it was a gift from God and sacred and meant only for marriage. Which is likely why you don't hear too much about it. They didn't talk about it too much publically. Why should they? They didn't publically write about their finances much, either. Maybe they didn't think it was particularly the business of the public?
As a coaster?
You mean, make it into a normal computer? ;)
"Informative" ...
I suppose it's more brave to respond with name calling. ;)
Anyways, to answer the question: do I know what it's like? No, not personally. Have I had family members with terminal diseases? Yes. One in particular... she wanted to spend as much time as she could with her loving family. She never complained about the obvious pain she was in. She was alone for the last 20 years of her life (her husband died much before her). Her wits were almost completely with her, yet she lived in a rest home surrounded by many who were "losing it." I would call that just as brave, if not more so.
Am I saying there is not some sense of bravery, as the original poster said? No, I'm not saying that. On the other hand, we sometimes have a very, very messed up idea about bravery. We define bravery, typically, as kind of ... haphazard, not caring about what happens to you, etc. I would say that bravery is more the willingness to do what you know, or at least "feel," to be right, even though it will hurt, cause you pain, and be difficult. It's not not-being-afraid... it's doing it even though you are afraid. As Don Knotts said in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, "...doing one's duty no matter what is scaring him personally." Funny movie, but I think he hit it pretty much right on.
I won't judge what the co-founder of EMC's reasons were. But it sure sounded like the original poster was saying that if we all had the same "bravery" that this guy had, we'd all "check out on our own terms."
That is why I asked for the definition. I don't call avoidance of pain bravery, I'd call that human instinct. Facing the unknown isn't necessarily bravery, either. Throwing yourself to fate could be considered stupidity. Was it? I can't say, I don't know what was going on in his mind.
dude, even my car has chrome. it rocks! or, rather, rockmelts.
define "bravery"
What can you do on Linux that can't be done in windows?
Make fun of the Windows users from the high vantage point of a Linux user?
Information wants to be free. There's no such thing as plagiarism. ;)
(oops. forgot qcd bit.)
A bio botanical hair stylist?
It's not too far-fetched. It was tried by some. Try looking at various countries' eugenics and sterilization endeavors.
[sarcasm] He's not just the President! He's going to change the world! And I know he can be trusted, just listen to him. I don't mind him having the power to turn off the internet for a little while if that's what we need to do to change! [insert some comment about the "previous 8 years" here] [/sarcasm]