I think we both agree on this point. Like RPM, there does need to be a single installation method which everyone but the red-headed-stepchildren (like the aforementioned StarOffice - I don't know if it does it now but it USED TO have an installer) uses. I don't even care whether it's MSI or something else, as long as it's consistent and doesn't require a billion dollar IDE (InstallShield anyone?)
IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC. The user is REQUIRED to pony up admin priviledges if they aren't an admin, or make their e-mark on the UAC "OK or Not" dialog if they are.
Every user does have one. If you look in your Home Directory on an NT based installation (typically C:\Documents and Settings\Username) you may see a system file named "NTUSER.DAT" - this is your per user registry. When you log into Windows, this is mounted by Windows as HKEY_CURRENT_USER.
It is rarely necessary to write to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, but idiotic developers persist in using it to store such wonderous things as "UseOpenGL = (dword) 1" - something that's clearly a user setting.
I cannot speak for InstallShield (which is the equivelant of... oh... StarOffice Installer - does it still come packaged like that?), but if it is a Windows Installer (MSI) - which I would grant is the closest Windows-y alternative to Redhat Package Manager (RPM) packages, you can open the package in Orca and see exactly what the package does during install. It may require a degree of technical knowledge but I would contend that the average user who can't work Orca probably can't work RPM or TAR either.
I think he was referring to your usage of "the one" - I also have never encountered viruses or spyware on machines under my direct control, but do not believe I am the only one in Existence to have done so.
Windows suspends the user desktop while waiting for authorisation. No programs running in userland are allowed to do anything while this occurs. If you were using the Java Robot class from a driver or something, this would work. Of course, if that's the case you've got bigger things to worry about than a program clicking OK to UAC.
I imagine that in Explorer's case, because Explorer represents both your file manager and your entire desktop interface - and there are quite a few too many ways (some of which do not necessarily require your explicit request) to get the desktop interface to execute stuff.
MS has included and antivirus solution (defender) with Windows Vista. Since it is bundled with Vista and everyone who buys a new computer will find Vista pre-installed and with it Defender and they will have already paid for it by the time they find out about it, Defender will almost certainly become the most widespread solution, possibly completely taking over the home market, regardless of how good it is (failed to be certified due to too many incorrect classifications). This means within the next few years, it may be only one company you have to go to to get the signature fixed. That's the good news. The bad news is that they won't have any reason to respond quickly and won't have any motivation to not have false positive and negatives since they get paid when Windows is purchased and even if users abandon it and buy something else, they don't lose any money.
No they haven't. Windows Defender is Anti-Spyware ONLY. It will not find viruses. OneCare will, but OneCare is NOT free, and NOT bundled.
Archive.org isn't a government entity, to set the record straight. It's owned and operated by The Internet Archive (a 501 non-profit) using hardware and technical services from Alexa Internet. It does NOT have boatloads of cash behind it (in fact, it has virtually none) and if hit by a lawsuit from a larger company would be instantly crushed without intervention from someone else.
Right, clearly I'm a fucktard because I think Java is bloody horrific. Screw that, I'm staying with C++ and Pascal. Two reasonable languages (please don't kill me for the Pascal folks, I just happen to find it's logical and works)
So we can look forward to a release that does not eat 139MB for the Java Runtime Environment if you open a Java based application? And that actually runs at an acceptable speed on a Pentium FOUR?
Sun have sat on their laurels for all too long with Java. It's telling that Java is a common source of fodder for thedailywtf.com, because the language in itself is horrific to develop in, and seems to be evidence of being "The software industrys way of proving that no matter how fast hardware manufacturers can make hardware, software manufacturers can STILL make it run like utter shit."
Being open source does not automatically make it good. Just like being closed source does not automatically make it BAD. If only more people would understand this and judge products based on their merits not whether or not you can read its source code (with no intention of modifying it).
Not really. Some countries have actually banned tobacco advertising. We have a law here in NZ that specifically states (paraphrasing) "No person may advertise the availability of, or encourage the practice of smoking behaviour". Now, as a result we have one tobacconist whose ad states this very same law and states that "Sure we sell hip flasks and pouches, but what we really sell, we aren't allowed to advertise in this country" (which is technically legal. There's always loopholes, eh?)
ALSO wrong. The primary goal of a corporation (as dictated by law) is to act in a manner that ensures the best legal return on investment to shareholders. Shareholders contribute the majority of the money that allows the company to exist (initial capital, you see), and failing to ensure that you act in their best interests is a crime. You may not do anything that could potentially result in losses to these shareholders (that you are made aware of prior to making the call - mistakes do happen and are ignored so long as they are not the result of mismanagement).
Giving a small quantity of product to non-profits can be considered to be good public relations, but donating massive quantities like you say is their duty would almost certainly require the OK from the major stakeholders, who are highly likely to refuse. The company cannot gainsay a decision by them. (Please note that the above is relevant to companies who either do not have a constitution, or have a constitution which does not explicitly remove these rights from the voting shareholders).
I read Slashdot, so I'm preeeetty sure the ethernet cable is plugged in. 'course like I said, I don't visit dodgy sites (or when necessary I boot up Opera, which supports almost no extension technologies that I'm aware of - try installing spyware on THAT!)
I don't get spyware myself because there are products designed specifically to prevent spyware from being able to install - utilising these does a VERY good job at preventing crap from getting in there. Bear in mind folks, even Firefox has been proven to have critical bugs that allow information disclosure (remember that one where an overrun would occur and Firefox would give scripts access to your system memory - well, as much of it as Firefox could get to? They fixed it, but the same could be said for MSIE)
Uhh... woudln't just be easier to bomb the source. It's not like we don't know where Micro$ofts head quarters are. I am so sick of hearing this type of crap that Microsoft (what, you can't spell "s"?) is responsible for every single piece of botnet or exploit on the internet. You know, Linux/Unix machines can be "rooted" as well - to the same or more devastating effect...
However, like with/([A-Za-z]?)nix/, Windows can be quite secure in the hands of one who knows what they're doing. In my 10 years of using Windows, I've never had a virus or trojan infect a machine under my direct control. Any virus would fail to pass the ISA Firewall (yes, that's MICROSOFT's Firewall software) as the antivirus (granted, third party) would block it from being retransmitted to the requesting machine. Client machines are on a completely seperate subnet behind a Sonicwall firewall (though even a cheapo device can achieve this same result), and outbound SMTP is allowed ONLY to the Mail Exchanger on the other side of the firewall. This setup is not really all THAT hard to do... if you wanted to save money you'd swap the ISA for a Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/Insert Distribution Here (Solaris?) machine with maybe Squid or something, but the net effect is the same - the client machines are SAFE.
Perhaps I was being unintentionally general in my statement. In specifics, they are legally required to act as a fiduciary for the shareholders (Google's text, not mine) - I tracked that definition down to "An individual, company, or association holding assets in trust for a beneficiary. The fiduciary has the responsibility of managing the money for the benefit of the beneficiary".
The line in particular I read this from Larry's line "We are conscious of our duty as fiduciaries for our shareholders, and we will fulfill those responsibilities".
This reads with the definition above as "We are conscious of our responsibility of managing the money for the benefit of our shareholders, and we will fulfill those responsibilities".
The difference between Google and any other company is that Google has publically stated in their letter that they WILL take risks. Some of them will win, some of them will lose. At worst, they'll break even considering their revenue. They also state that they see Long Term, not just Short Term.
Blizzard is one, though they don't TELL you it's beta.
On a more serious note, Stardock Corporation does also charge for its beta Thinkdesk service - although they expire your 12 month subscription one year from the date that all four components have dropped their "Beta" tag - so it's more like pre-ordering and getting access to the beta as a perk.
Google's shareholders have virtually no voice in the operation of the company, remember? How can a company be answerable to people that never had a real voice in the company in the first place? Not answerable per-se, but any company with shareholders (in most countries, including the US) is legally obliged to ensure that it acts in the best interests of the company as a whole and the shareholders in particular. It's not the shareholders they answer to (though the larger ones certainly do have a voice) it's the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we both agree on this point. Like RPM, there does need to be a single installation method which everyone but the red-headed-stepchildren (like the aforementioned StarOffice - I don't know if it does it now but it USED TO have an installer) uses. I don't even care whether it's MSI or something else, as long as it's consistent and doesn't require a billion dollar IDE (InstallShield anyone?)
IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC. The user is REQUIRED to pony up admin priviledges if they aren't an admin, or make their e-mark on the UAC "OK or Not" dialog if they are.
Every user does have one. If you look in your Home Directory on an NT based installation (typically C:\Documents and Settings\Username) you may see a system file named "NTUSER.DAT" - this is your per user registry. When you log into Windows, this is mounted by Windows as HKEY_CURRENT_USER.
It is rarely necessary to write to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, but idiotic developers persist in using it to store such wonderous things as "UseOpenGL = (dword) 1" - something that's clearly a user setting.
I cannot speak for InstallShield (which is the equivelant of ... oh ... StarOffice Installer - does it still come packaged like that?), but if it is a Windows Installer (MSI) - which I would grant is the closest Windows-y alternative to Redhat Package Manager (RPM) packages, you can open the package in Orca and see exactly what the package does during install. It may require a degree of technical knowledge but I would contend that the average user who can't work Orca probably can't work RPM or TAR either.
I think he was referring to your usage of "the one" - I also have never encountered viruses or spyware on machines under my direct control, but do not believe I am the only one in Existence to have done so.
Windows suspends the user desktop while waiting for authorisation. No programs running in userland are allowed to do anything while this occurs. If you were using the Java Robot class from a driver or something, this would work. Of course, if that's the case you've got bigger things to worry about than a program clicking OK to UAC.
I imagine that in Explorer's case, because Explorer represents both your file manager and your entire desktop interface - and there are quite a few too many ways (some of which do not necessarily require your explicit request) to get the desktop interface to execute stuff.
MS has included and antivirus solution (defender) with Windows Vista. Since it is bundled with Vista and everyone who buys a new computer will find Vista pre-installed and with it Defender and they will have already paid for it by the time they find out about it, Defender will almost certainly become the most widespread solution, possibly completely taking over the home market, regardless of how good it is (failed to be certified due to too many incorrect classifications). This means within the next few years, it may be only one company you have to go to to get the signature fixed. That's the good news. The bad news is that they won't have any reason to respond quickly and won't have any motivation to not have false positive and negatives since they get paid when Windows is purchased and even if users abandon it and buy something else, they don't lose any money.
No they haven't. Windows Defender is Anti-Spyware ONLY. It will not find viruses. OneCare will, but OneCare is NOT free, and NOT bundled.
Archive.org doesn't make a profit, so it has no revenue to speak of to share. As such, their response to Copiepresse would like as not be "GTFO."
It was published TODAY. GoogleBot doesn't even know about it yet.
Archive.org isn't a government entity, to set the record straight. It's owned and operated by The Internet Archive (a 501 non-profit) using hardware and technical services from Alexa Internet. It does NOT have boatloads of cash behind it (in fact, it has virtually none) and if hit by a lawsuit from a larger company would be instantly crushed without intervention from someone else.
I think it unlikely that a lawsuit would have been necessary when the NY Times could simply go ahead and do this
*cough* China... pretty sure Google shouldn't but IS shutting people out.
I'm not talking about legality; I'm talking about morality.
Which ruins your entire argument. If a company puts morality above legality, it wont last a year.
Right, clearly I'm a fucktard because I think Java is bloody horrific. Screw that, I'm staying with C++ and Pascal. Two reasonable languages (please don't kill me for the Pascal folks, I just happen to find it's logical and works)
So we can look forward to a release that does not eat 139MB for the Java Runtime Environment if you open a Java based application? And that actually runs at an acceptable speed on a Pentium FOUR?
Sun have sat on their laurels for all too long with Java. It's telling that Java is a common source of fodder for thedailywtf.com, because the language in itself is horrific to develop in, and seems to be evidence of being "The software industrys way of proving that no matter how fast hardware manufacturers can make hardware, software manufacturers can STILL make it run like utter shit."
Being open source does not automatically make it good. Just like being closed source does not automatically make it BAD. If only more people would understand this and judge products based on their merits not whether or not you can read its source code (with no intention of modifying it).
Not really. Some countries have actually banned tobacco advertising. We have a law here in NZ that specifically states (paraphrasing) "No person may advertise the availability of, or encourage the practice of smoking behaviour". Now, as a result we have one tobacconist whose ad states this very same law and states that "Sure we sell hip flasks and pouches, but what we really sell, we aren't allowed to advertise in this country" (which is technically legal. There's always loopholes, eh?)
ALSO wrong. The primary goal of a corporation (as dictated by law) is to act in a manner that ensures the best legal return on investment to shareholders. Shareholders contribute the majority of the money that allows the company to exist (initial capital, you see), and failing to ensure that you act in their best interests is a crime. You may not do anything that could potentially result in losses to these shareholders (that you are made aware of prior to making the call - mistakes do happen and are ignored so long as they are not the result of mismanagement).
Giving a small quantity of product to non-profits can be considered to be good public relations, but donating massive quantities like you say is their duty would almost certainly require the OK from the major stakeholders, who are highly likely to refuse. The company cannot gainsay a decision by them. (Please note that the above is relevant to companies who either do not have a constitution, or have a constitution which does not explicitly remove these rights from the voting shareholders).
I read Slashdot, so I'm preeeetty sure the ethernet cable is plugged in. 'course like I said, I don't visit dodgy sites (or when necessary I boot up Opera, which supports almost no extension technologies that I'm aware of - try installing spyware on THAT!) I don't get spyware myself because there are products designed specifically to prevent spyware from being able to install - utilising these does a VERY good job at preventing crap from getting in there. Bear in mind folks, even Firefox has been proven to have critical bugs that allow information disclosure (remember that one where an overrun would occur and Firefox would give scripts access to your system memory - well, as much of it as Firefox could get to? They fixed it, but the same could be said for MSIE)
Endorsing Sun products is hardly something to be encouraged. Java. Ugh. PHP I could live with. Even Perl's not too bad.
However, like with
Perhaps I was being unintentionally general in my statement. In specifics, they are legally required to act as a fiduciary for the shareholders (Google's text, not mine) - I tracked that definition down to "An individual, company, or association holding assets in trust for a beneficiary. The fiduciary has the responsibility of managing the money for the benefit of the beneficiary".
The line in particular I read this from Larry's line "We are conscious of our duty as fiduciaries for our shareholders, and we will fulfill those responsibilities".
This reads with the definition above as "We are conscious of our responsibility of managing the money for the benefit of our shareholders, and we will fulfill those responsibilities".
The difference between Google and any other company is that Google has publically stated in their letter that they WILL take risks. Some of them will win, some of them will lose. At worst, they'll break even considering their revenue. They also state that they see Long Term, not just Short Term.
Blizzard is one, though they don't TELL you it's beta. On a more serious note, Stardock Corporation does also charge for its beta Thinkdesk service - although they expire your 12 month subscription one year from the date that all four components have dropped their "Beta" tag - so it's more like pre-ordering and getting access to the beta as a perk.
I looked at F1... I see the word "Help" - I don't see what the hell that has to do with Halo.