You still need the <p> if you're using <blockquote>, since it's meant for multiple-paragraph quotes. The thing you wrote could be <blockquote><p><i>%s</i></p></blockquote>.
Web mail, or a specific exception. Most users have access to a web interface for their mail. As for SSL, I doubt that ads have to be on every page, particularly when in such small doses as the average user's use of SSL.
The fact that Google have gotten patents implies (or you'd hope it'd imply) that they've got something marginally more sophisticated up their sleeves though. Mine was a simple example.
Their advertisers don't leave right now because of that, though. I mean, so long as the ads are relatively unobtrusive, only expert users will remove them, and I'm sure the theory is that they're the minority of the target audience (especially since that group of people is bound to be less likely to click ads anyway).
I have never gotten Ubuntu running significantly faster than XP. On my slow system it runs just as badly, if not worse. Xubuntu (Xfce4) works an absolute treat though, although I since started experimenting on the system and it's not there any more.
I have to say I've not used XP Home. That's a pretty stupid limitation, but to be fair most people wouldn't know how to use it. What's really needed is a more sensible default.
I'm not talking about security holes — I think you've missed the point of my earlier posts (which, I think, would be easy since I'm not particularly good at conveying points at the best of times). The point is that most spyware/adware is agreed-to by the user. They don't need security holes. An uninformed user with the power to install software is all that they need. There's not an effective way around this sort of "attack" without using a blacklist and/or behavioural checks, which is what most "anti-spyware" systems do.
Rootkits are just about the only system where elevated privileges significantly help a spyware/adware system. Most of the time they're just concerned with "spying" on the user, which does not require extra privileges (of course, it probably should — "proper" data hiding between processes is – as far as I know – not something that's implemented in most systems).
Too be fair, Windows does have an access control list-based security system. The default home user is just given every permission, which seems quite the extreme way to preserve "backwards compatibility".
Rootkits are a specific exception though — most systems (that are around now) don't use them.
Regardless, few systems have any defence against trusted code. Which most Spyware and Adware is, since the user chooses specifically to run it. Your point holds with some malicious spyware systems (particularly older ones which would popup that browser plugin install thing), but these days they tend to just be surreptitiously attached to more innocent-looking (to the non-computer literate) software.
The bottom line is that there's no technical reason that Spyware is more prevalent on any platform other than Windows. It's just a bigger target. With viruses and so on there's at least a technological reason as well as this, but Spyware/Adware aren't something that can be effectively protect against, because in most cases the user agrees to the software.
Information on the techniques used is available on Wikipedia. In short, the content is encrypted when it passes through every part of the system, including the display device itself. Sony said they wouldn't be using the option on this media for the time being though.
That's not to say that the encryption is unbreakable, but certainly ripping is to be orders of magnitude more difficult than with DVD. Not impossible, of course.
Collection and organisation does not necessarily involve invasion of privacy. Google should be watched, like everyone else, but so long as they do not break the rules that are in place there's no need to presume they will.
Get innovative, people -- invent something new and useful that Windows *doesn't* have, and then they will come.
If Novell is lauching SLED 10 with its Xgl extension, this will be another feature to show off and attract users that are easily impressed by this kind of eye candy.
Xgl is very cool (had it running on my Ubuntu box for a week or two now, it's amazing but it keeps crashing when I use too many modifier keys, for some reason:(), but it's going to — at best — manage to equal MS's Vista frontend. It is pretty shiny, though.
I think that the main problem with OS development these days, though, is that we're approaching the limit of things that can be done in the OS. As pointed out in another article, the onus of much of "what computers are used for" seems to be moving to online, cross-platform services. I expect Vista will be as secure as any desktop Linux distribution, and soon Linux (especially GNOME, to betray my personal preference on the subject) will be just as usable as OSX or Windows. Where do we go from there?
Without a significant new paradigm, all the operating systems currently seem to be converging. I just wonder whether this means we've reached some reasonable approximation of "getting it right", or if it means we need to look at things from a fresher angle.
Oh, and since I've just realised you were the original "OMG!" poster, the reply to the other reply to my post has a more reasoned bunch of thoughts on the subject, if you're interested.:)
I had OSX in mind at the time, but I suppose so. I do find that things tend to be — as the article points out — a little less consistent on Linux-based systems, particularly when you get into tasks that you can't do with the "bundled" apps of your DE of choice. The usability projects of both KDE and Gnome are working hard on this sort of thing, though, and I feel that it's gotten a lot better in the last couple of years.
As with the other post the replied to that post, though, I apologise for responding to the trollish post "in anger", ending up being just as bad.
Well, it certainly seems to, but I'd be interested to see data to the contrary. I probably shouldn't have replied "in anger" to the guy trolling me, though, my response wasn't really justified.
Just claiming that "computers are hard, deal" is not a productive way to deal with usability issues, though. That assumption has been proven incorrect many times over, and usability continues to evolve to help this be incorrect. If people have to know considerably more information to achieve a task than knowledge of the task itself, particularly if that knowledge is not consistent with the knowledge they already have about the (in this case, computing) platform being used to do the task, it's time to start asking why.
Yes, but people complaining that it's a "problem" with Windows seem to miss the point that it is users' preferred behaviour. This is almost the sort of thing that the article was decrying.
Slashdot Mirror
You still need the <p> if you're using <blockquote>, since it's meant for multiple-paragraph quotes. The thing you wrote could be <blockquote><p><i>%s</i></p></blockquote>.
:)
Web mail, or a specific exception. Most users have access to a web interface for their mail. As for SSL, I doubt that ads have to be on every page, particularly when in such small doses as the average user's use of SSL.
The fact that Google have gotten patents implies (or you'd hope it'd imply) that they've got something marginally more sophisticated up their sleeves though. Mine was a simple example.
Their advertisers don't leave right now because of that, though. I mean, so long as the ads are relatively unobtrusive, only expert users will remove them, and I'm sure the theory is that they're the minority of the target audience (especially since that group of people is bound to be less likely to click ads anyway).
How about only allowing access through an HTTP proxy which inserts ads? Seems to me like that would work. :)
To be fair, since SP2, IE hasn't been particularly bad. The protections are a little more sane now.
Windows PCs are not "plagued with viruses", though, in general. It's fairly trivial to avoid such things these days.
I have never gotten Ubuntu running significantly faster than XP. On my slow system it runs just as badly, if not worse. Xubuntu (Xfce4) works an absolute treat though, although I since started experimenting on the system and it's not there any more.
And? My point is that you don't have to be logged in as root for these systems to do their work.
I have to say I've not used XP Home. That's a pretty stupid limitation, but to be fair most people wouldn't know how to use it. What's really needed is a more sensible default.
I'm not talking about security holes — I think you've missed the point of my earlier posts (which, I think, would be easy since I'm not particularly good at conveying points at the best of times). The point is that most spyware/adware is agreed-to by the user. They don't need security holes. An uninformed user with the power to install software is all that they need. There's not an effective way around this sort of "attack" without using a blacklist and/or behavioural checks, which is what most "anti-spyware" systems do.
Rootkits are just about the only system where elevated privileges significantly help a spyware/adware system. Most of the time they're just concerned with "spying" on the user, which does not require extra privileges (of course, it probably should — "proper" data hiding between processes is – as far as I know – not something that's implemented in most systems).
Too be fair, Windows does have an access control list-based security system. The default home user is just given every permission, which seems quite the extreme way to preserve "backwards compatibility".
Rootkits are a specific exception though — most systems (that are around now) don't use them.
Regardless, few systems have any defence against trusted code. Which most Spyware and Adware is, since the user chooses specifically to run it. Your point holds with some malicious spyware systems (particularly older ones which would popup that browser plugin install thing), but these days they tend to just be surreptitiously attached to more innocent-looking (to the non-computer literate) software.
The bottom line is that there's no technical reason that Spyware is more prevalent on any platform other than Windows. It's just a bigger target. With viruses and so on there's at least a technological reason as well as this, but Spyware/Adware aren't something that can be effectively protect against, because in most cases the user agrees to the software.
Thanks for that clarification, I had been wondering how that part worked.
Information on the techniques used is available on Wikipedia. In short, the content is encrypted when it passes through every part of the system, including the display device itself. Sony said they wouldn't be using the option on this media for the time being though.
That's not to say that the encryption is unbreakable, but certainly ripping is to be orders of magnitude more difficult than with DVD. Not impossible, of course.
Collection and organisation does not necessarily involve invasion of privacy. Google should be watched, like everyone else, but so long as they do not break the rules that are in place there's no need to presume they will.
I'm fairly sure that that's not true — I think that Acid2 checks standards that are non-W3C.
Xgl is very cool (had it running on my Ubuntu box for a week or two now, it's amazing but it keeps crashing when I use too many modifier keys, for some reason :(), but it's going to — at best — manage to equal MS's Vista frontend. It is pretty shiny, though.
I think that the main problem with OS development these days, though, is that we're approaching the limit of things that can be done in the OS. As pointed out in another article, the onus of much of "what computers are used for" seems to be moving to online, cross-platform services. I expect Vista will be as secure as any desktop Linux distribution, and soon Linux (especially GNOME, to betray my personal preference on the subject) will be just as usable as OSX or Windows. Where do we go from there?
Without a significant new paradigm, all the operating systems currently seem to be converging. I just wonder whether this means we've reached some reasonable approximation of "getting it right", or if it means we need to look at things from a fresher angle.
Interesting times.
Oh, and since I've just realised you were the original "OMG!" poster, the reply to the other reply to my post has a more reasoned bunch of thoughts on the subject, if you're interested. :)
I had OSX in mind at the time, but I suppose so. I do find that things tend to be — as the article points out — a little less consistent on Linux-based systems, particularly when you get into tasks that you can't do with the "bundled" apps of your DE of choice. The usability projects of both KDE and Gnome are working hard on this sort of thing, though, and I feel that it's gotten a lot better in the last couple of years.
As with the other post the replied to that post, though, I apologise for responding to the trollish post "in anger", ending up being just as bad.
Well, it certainly seems to, but I'd be interested to see data to the contrary. I probably shouldn't have replied "in anger" to the guy trolling me, though, my response wasn't really justified.
Just claiming that "computers are hard, deal" is not a productive way to deal with usability issues, though. That assumption has been proven incorrect many times over, and usability continues to evolve to help this be incorrect. If people have to know considerably more information to achieve a task than knowledge of the task itself, particularly if that knowledge is not consistent with the knowledge they already have about the (in this case, computing) platform being used to do the task, it's time to start asking why.
Yes, but people complaining that it's a "problem" with Windows seem to miss the point that it is users' preferred behaviour. This is almost the sort of thing that the article was decrying.
OMG! The competitor's brand does the same things with less training requirements? Propaganda, surely?
I've never used either, to be honest, so you're anecdotal evidence is good enough for me. :)
I think NetMeeting was replaced with something else, but I really couldn't tell you what it's called, sorry.
The fact that you need to understand the distinction to be able to "fix" it has everything to do with Linux-based desktop systems.