Let me start with the whole MDI/Tabbed interface thing: if you're using a Mac, I can see where you're coming from. However, when you have a "task bar" showing you all open windows (rather than all open applications as OSX does), it gets cluttered very quickly, as does the alt-tab selection. This is where it comes in particularly handy.
Oh, and to bring you up speed with the Windows command line is sadly still sorely lacking in the flexibility of shell scripting, though Windows PowerShell is a vast improvement available for Windows 2003 Server and will be included with Windows 2008 Server
Now, quite a good deal of what you've mentioned about Visual Studio really don't include the more visual aspects of it, much of which focus around Microsoft-centric technologies. For example, if you're going to use a visual designer for QT-driven GUIs, you'll probably use the QT designer (though I must admit QT GUI development is simple enough to not really need a visual approach like this, imo). Likewise, if you are going to create an MFC application, it makes sense to use Visual Studio. The same is true, of course, for.NET's System.Windows.Form namepsace. One also has to admit that Microsoft did implement features such as IntelliSense (yes, I expect you probably dislike their implementation) pretty early on.
I've done my fair share of development on Windows and Linux, and I've dabbled with XCode on OSX. My personal opinion is that the tools available on all platforms each have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but my preference definitely leans toward Eclipse. I suspect that the primary reason for using Visual Studio is for those developing with/for Microsoft-centric technologies, which is really quite practical. For others, it is a matter of simply not knowing (and not caring to know) about the alternatives out there (I'd say QT easily has the upper hand on MFC, of course) and/or staying with their comfort-zone.
So unfortunately, I was unable to tell you what makes Visual Studio so much better than Eclipse or XCode; however, they all fulfill their purposes well, in my humble opinion. So now it's just a matter of sitting back and waiting for the super Microsoft-haters to berate me for saying that something from Microsoft is actually useful, as there's no way so many business could use them if they weren't.:-)
The article is definitely flame-bait. I think most could agree, the primary weaknesses pointed out are necessarily in the operating systems themselves, but in the supporting software. Be it drivers, good tools for video edit, programming, etc... A good operating system simply cannot get anywhere without support on this side of the fence (coughs BeOS under breath). Now, that's not to say Linux hasn't gotten anywhere in this regard, because it has clearly made very significant progress over the years. I'm definitely curious to see how close the market-share is for Desktop Linux compared to OSX presently. I believe competition will be extraordinarily interesting from Apple when Linux approaches this. And one more thing: I'd pay for something like VMWare's fusion for Linux as the host OS!
You are definitely correct. There are also a good deal of people who do not know how to change a tire in case one goes flat. Some of them can afford road side assistance services, some can't. For those who can't, would you tell them not to carry a spare and the tools necessary to change a flat? Furthermore, would you not, for the care of an individual's general well-being, advise the individual that he/she should take some time to learn how to change a flat, and possibly even offer to teach the person yourself?
I can certainly sympathize with you there: I have some neighbors directly across the street from me who show no temperance with their stereo systems, and it is quite vexing to say the least. However, I can assure you nobody in a parking lot or neighborhood has ever even been aware of the fact that I have such a stereo system in my car. Not that I like to get argumentative, but I do get rather defensive about the assumption that *I* must be the one waking people up. I only blast it occasionally, and when I do, it is on a major highway (i.e. a large interstate where nobody would be bothered by it over highway noise). That attitude is precisely why neighbors don't even know about it. Another person who had similar ethics to mine had boasted to a neighbor, who then told all the other neighbors. Eventually, anybody who passed by blasting their stereo must have been him, the neighbors assume. It was not long before they keyed his car, slashed his tires, and even smashed some windows.
As touched in my original post: I only trust myself and my closest friends (which is only a handful of people whom I've known for between 5-10 years). I do not trust my neighbors to that extent, sadly. Therefore, I won't even perform a quick test of the system in my driveway if I've recently fixed something - I'll go out for a quick drive rather than take the chance.
So your thanks is unwelcome, obviously, as I am not the inconsiderate asshole waking you up in the middle of the night as you were so quick to assume. And just as you are in your right to emit various RF signals (within reason), I am within my right to own a powerful speaker system both in my home and in my car. What I choose to do with it, and when and where I use it is what matters, and I've always understood and respected that fact.
My car has some niceties I have added on myself. While I certainly do not take my car to just any mechanic, there are some (rare) exceptions when it cannot go to my usual mechanic (i.e. warranty work I had done in the past). An example of once such feature is a very loud stereo system. I actually take the electronic toll pass, change, and especially the amplifiers, and sub woofers out of the car before taking it in because I know the volume would otherwise be maxed out when I get it back from the shop. I simply do not trust just anyone outside of myself and my close friends to have those items within their reach. Furthermore, I am also careful, as with anybody else, to only hand them the keys they need to operate the vehicle, and do not provide them with my house keys or keys to anything other than the car.
People need to take the same types of precautions with computers. If possible, back up your files elsewhere (i.e. optical media, portable hard drive) or consider using a network storage device (many home network storage devices are available now with RAID, and are not terribly high in price). Just as you would with a car, take out any money and private/personal belongings and put it elsewhere for while it is in the shop. Also, use different passwords for your logins than you use for your email accounts and the-like, as this is synonymous to only providing them with the key/keys they need.
This really hits the point of the whole thing: to make research more interesting. In general, things we enjoy doing are interesting to us; and likewise, things that we do not enjoy are not. The idea is to explore means (in this case, to specifically think in new ways) in which research can instead become fun and therefore more interesting.
Personally, I feel that this is because too many are too short-sighted to see how the results of research can be fun, exciting, and very interesting. In a way, it could be made analogous to cooking: everybody loves to eat, but not everybody loves it enough to subsequently love cooking. In the end, I'm not sure that research can really be made any more fun than it already is; however, if making it seem more interesting (or even just making it less painful of a process) initially brings more people to exciting results which lead them to love it, then it's worth every bit of effort.
But what rich person doesn't spend a lot of money?
The ones that are as wealthy as they are because of what seems like a mental disorder. I know a multi-millionaire who strongly refused to purchase non-generic ketchup at the grocery store because it would have cost $0.06 more. It's strange, but this type of person gathers so much money and refuses to spend much more than the minimum necessary to survive, and does not even enjoy the money he or she saved. I'm no millionaire myself, but I honestly thought the person was joking at first. Once I realized it was no joke, Chris Rock's "good lord that's a lot o' money!" bit already came into mind and I had to fight off a giggle. For a little more depth, the house was a comfortable size (1 room for each person living there), but nearly every piece of furniture and clothing came from a local thrift store. So in summary, they were quite wealthy, yet lived as if it were really that necessary to stretch each and every penny to the greatest extent possible. Of the wealthy population, however, these folks definitely appear to be an exception.
I just realized this is a bit off-topic from the post, but you asked (though it was probably a rhetorical question), and I already finished typing my reply.:-)
Does it matter? I'm already gathering up as many stones as I can, and I suggest you do the same!
Kidding aside, how are we supposed to believe some information is selectively omitted? Also, how much is blatant disinformation? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... we all know how it goes. No government, person, or group of people in any position of power will ever have my trust, and I'll never simply believe their word.
...when I say if it is actually called "Earth 2.0" that I would seek Kevorkian's "assistance." (Joking, of course.) The moniker is used way too much! Instead, I feel we should call the planet "Godzilla" so it would be entertaining to hear people scream its name in excitement upon viewing it for the first time.
Please enlighten me as to what a "Ford Yarius" is, exactly. Toyota makes a "Yaris" - is that what you meant to reference? And small economy cars might be viewed as a "crappy toy car" by those who enjoy the luxury of large SUVs and sedans that are just as tank-like as the SUVs, but some people simple cannot afford or do not care to have the luxuries of those types of cars.
As for your argument, the truth is that "quality assurance" and "Microsoft" simply don't go together. More often than not, Microsoft releases software well before it is truly ready to be released to the public. Take Visual Studio 7.0 / 2002 for example - holy hell was that ever a piece of shit! But what I saw was everybody being so anxious to use this whole new ".NET" thing that would fix all the world's problems. Anybody who has had the need to write mixed C++ assemblies using Managed Extensions for C++ knows that it was a horrible piece of crap to start with, and that is also true for anybody who made the mistake of trying to run ASP.NET 1.0 applications in a high-traffic environment. Somehow, they got away with it, and admittedly, there is quality there now. The way I see it is that.NET 1.0 was alpha level code, 1.1 was beta level, and 2.0 should have been the 1.0. 3.0 is really more like a 2.5 as well.
Continuing on your argument regarding Microsoft's quality products, let's take a look at Windows. IMHO, this is where nobody shines brighter than Microsoft in making the definition of quality as clear as mud. If we look at the big picture here, Microsoft has always come in behind everyone else in technologies, yet had the audacity to successfully market this as "innovation." Let's jump back a ways: Long file names, woohoo! Forcing the kernel to be a layer between all hardware and drivers, woohoo! And more recently, let's ask the user to authorize access that could potentially compromise the system, "yay!" Microsoft says, "everybody should follow what the UAC is doing now" - yeah, suck my left nut, Microsoft. Unix-derived systems have had these features long before Microsoft has, and with better quality years ago from what Microsoft offers now. The only thing Microsoft did better than Unix-derived/inspired operating systems was GUI design, but I would say it is definitely time to revisit that with the current status of Gnome and KDE (my mother, near 60 years old and far from computer savvy has been using Ubuntu since 6.06. It's more reliable for her, she needs a less expensive PC, and she asks me questions less often!).
Finally, I'm going to finish blasting (or call me a troll if you want) your argument with the same note you touted. The Pontiac GrandAm, at least for some time (especially the mid and late 90's) was a horrible piece of crap that depreciated in value very quickly. The car cost the same as a Honda Accord at the time, which was a much better quality car. Somehow, however, GM still sold these cars like hot-cakes because people liked the way the car looked! Before making a purchase, they did not research what would hold more value over a few years, what would be more likely to still be running after a few years, and so on... It was an "American car" which was aesthetically pleasing, and that was all there was to making that decision. Don't tell me people bought that garbage because it was better quality than the Accord, because that was especially far from true at the time. The same thing has happened with many of the Microsoft products. Even if some of their products are quality products, not all of them are, but people shut out alternatives for a number of reasons: Microsoft does everything in its power (which is obviously excessive) to suppress alternatives, many people are too dumb to understand the differences with software, and many people (and I must say probably most) are too lazy to understand the differences with software.
I can see all the people who play FPS games on the Internet might misinterpret a "tea party" to be a "tea-bagging party" instead. However, that may prove to be even more incentive...
"Who fsking cares" is exactly the right question. My parents, grandparents, and many of my peers who know very little about computers don't care what operating system they are using on a computer. To them, a computer is a computer just the same, regardless of the operating system. The bottom line for them is the costs involved. How reliable is the computer? How long will it be until another computer must be purchased? How much up-front cost is required for the initial purchase?
To my mother, who I am proud to say has been using Linux since Ubuntu 6.06 was released, Linux seems more reliable. She still clicks on those goofy advertisement images that look like they have real buttons, but guess what - her machine doesn't need to be reformatted within a week after that takes place! So in her eyes, the machine is more reliable.
To my grandmother, she only wants to be able to talk to family via email. Why does she need to spend any more than the bare minimum? Will this machine be more likely to be usable until she is no longer physically capable of using a computer? That is more likely to be true with Linux than Windows while keeping the OS up-to-date.
And why not take this a little further... What if I'm a small company in need of some "thin client" computers. Why should I pay even a little extra for an operating system on 20 computers, when I can get it for free and completely avoid those fees (which would be a significant price difference, no doubt).
(Though this does not apply to the dell desktops directly, these could be used for this purpose...) John/Jane Doe wants to start a new business where a web-based application with a database is required. Why should he/she need to pay for a Windows server environment and Microsoft SQL Server licenses? The benefit here is clearly that a good deal of additional money can be focused on the business requirements, and not initial licensing costs.
Of course, I could present many more real-life examples I'm aware of... While that may not be a majority of the market, it is a solid start to appeal to these constituent groups, and it could to be quite lucrative long-term. Your needs are one thing, but I'm merely suggestion not being egocentric and suggesting we think of others' needs instead. Doing this will clearly benefit the entire community long-term.
Have you ever used a Linux music player such as Rythmbox or Amarok? These use SQLite, and do exceptionally well with dealing with a sizable database. Basically, SQLite is what MS Access was *supposed* to be in terms of a portable database file format, but instead it is a very good, successful implementation.
First off, everybody should have seen this coming - they did this with the first XBox console.
Second, what are the benefits (outside of copying games illegitimately and cheating) would you have by modding your XBox 360? I haven't had any incentive to purchase the 360 because outside of better graphics and new games, my old, mod'd XBox can provide me all the same functionality. At least with the first gen XBox, modding gave you DVD playback (without the need to purchase the stupid dongle), music and movie file playback (i.e. off a file server on the network), potential to install a full Linux distro like Xebian (and the potential to use it as a MythTV front-end), etc... I'm honestly curious to know how I could maximize my bang-for-my-buck by modding an XBox 360 - how else might I be able to use that hardware, similar to the old XBox?
Additionally, no matter how much they try, there will always be people bent on cheating in live. Playing Halo 2 over my friend's Live account a few times was a crumby experience for me with the abundance of cheaters out there (and no, I'm not saying that b/c I'm a sore looser, but there comes a point in time that it is horribly obvious somebody is cheating), but I'm not so optimistic this will help much. Honestly, I have never purchased a live account, and I don't ever intend to purchase one (which is part of why I won't purchase a 360 - for that and other reasons).
Well I suggest you check out a base Windows Vista install. A fresh installation of Vista in a VMWare machine yields approximately 7.16GB. ^_^ A complete Linux install (GNOME/KDE, apps, QT + GTK, etc...) still requires less than half that disk space.
Have we ruled out the possibility that Novell could be working with Microsoft on this as a marketing campaign? Consider that "oh it's scary that we use Linux, but if we really need it let's use Novell because that's safe for us" could be precisely what M$ and Novell want you to think. I'll be the first to admit I know nothing of Novell's business practices, but business is business, and sometimes that means people play extraordinarily dirty. Honestly, I would absolutely love to be proven that this is wrong, but I suspect it will still remain a possibility.
Why was this modded as troll - just because of the statement, "In some ways, Windows is a security hole"?
There is some truth in this, IMHO. An example of how one could consider this true is that Microsoft no longer offers patches for older versions of Windows. I understand it is at the users disgression to keep up to date with costly Windows updates and to keep up with patches, but I still maintain that there is some truth to this statement, even if it is only a little bit of truth. Furthermore, any OS (especially older versions) have vulnerabilities, in which case, one could clearly argue that any OS and any piece of software is a security hole. Also, a good point was made about how important it is to patch based on the possibility of escalation. Though a small device being compromised itself might be a small risk, it could escalate itself to being a high risk if it is possible to compromise another, more critical machine from the one that seemed to be a small risk. The key is to either not take any chances where possible, or be as diligent as reasonably possible to see through such risks outside of only the obvious.
That's not true! When I first moved down to Florida in the early 90's, I saw a story about some guy who lost his peacock. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that bird is expensive and hard to come by, but I'm from New York, and nobody up there would care nearly enough to air something about that on television. Mabye things were better out west in St. Pete, but things were always that stupid around central FL!
Slashdot Mirror
Let me start with the whole MDI/Tabbed interface thing: if you're using a Mac, I can see where you're coming from. However, when you have a "task bar" showing you all open windows (rather than all open applications as OSX does), it gets cluttered very quickly, as does the alt-tab selection. This is where it comes in particularly handy.
Oh, and to bring you up speed with the Windows command line is sadly still sorely lacking in the flexibility of shell scripting, though Windows PowerShell is a vast improvement available for Windows 2003 Server and will be included with Windows 2008 Server
Now, quite a good deal of what you've mentioned about Visual Studio really don't include the more visual aspects of it, much of which focus around Microsoft-centric technologies. For example, if you're going to use a visual designer for QT-driven GUIs, you'll probably use the QT designer (though I must admit QT GUI development is simple enough to not really need a visual approach like this, imo). Likewise, if you are going to create an MFC application, it makes sense to use Visual Studio. The same is true, of course, for .NET's System.Windows.Form namepsace. One also has to admit that Microsoft did implement features such as IntelliSense (yes, I expect you probably dislike their implementation) pretty early on.
I've done my fair share of development on Windows and Linux, and I've dabbled with XCode on OSX. My personal opinion is that the tools available on all platforms each have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but my preference definitely leans toward Eclipse. I suspect that the primary reason for using Visual Studio is for those developing with/for Microsoft-centric technologies, which is really quite practical. For others, it is a matter of simply not knowing (and not caring to know) about the alternatives out there (I'd say QT easily has the upper hand on MFC, of course) and/or staying with their comfort-zone.
So unfortunately, I was unable to tell you what makes Visual Studio so much better than Eclipse or XCode; however, they all fulfill their purposes well, in my humble opinion. So now it's just a matter of sitting back and waiting for the super Microsoft-haters to berate me for saying that something from Microsoft is actually useful, as there's no way so many business could use them if they weren't. :-)
...when the tubes are clogged.
The article is definitely flame-bait. I think most could agree, the primary weaknesses pointed out are necessarily in the operating systems themselves, but in the supporting software. Be it drivers, good tools for video edit, programming, etc... A good operating system simply cannot get anywhere without support on this side of the fence (coughs BeOS under breath). Now, that's not to say Linux hasn't gotten anywhere in this regard, because it has clearly made very significant progress over the years. I'm definitely curious to see how close the market-share is for Desktop Linux compared to OSX presently. I believe competition will be extraordinarily interesting from Apple when Linux approaches this. And one more thing: I'd pay for something like VMWare's fusion for Linux as the host OS!
Sure, there are plenty of African languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa#Languages
No no, you wouldn't want Linux to violate yet another Microsoft patent! (being facetious, of course)
You are definitely correct. There are also a good deal of people who do not know how to change a tire in case one goes flat. Some of them can afford road side assistance services, some can't. For those who can't, would you tell them not to carry a spare and the tools necessary to change a flat? Furthermore, would you not, for the care of an individual's general well-being, advise the individual that he/she should take some time to learn how to change a flat, and possibly even offer to teach the person yourself?
I can certainly sympathize with you there: I have some neighbors directly across the street from me who show no temperance with their stereo systems, and it is quite vexing to say the least. However, I can assure you nobody in a parking lot or neighborhood has ever even been aware of the fact that I have such a stereo system in my car. Not that I like to get argumentative, but I do get rather defensive about the assumption that *I* must be the one waking people up. I only blast it occasionally, and when I do, it is on a major highway (i.e. a large interstate where nobody would be bothered by it over highway noise). That attitude is precisely why neighbors don't even know about it. Another person who had similar ethics to mine had boasted to a neighbor, who then told all the other neighbors. Eventually, anybody who passed by blasting their stereo must have been him, the neighbors assume. It was not long before they keyed his car, slashed his tires, and even smashed some windows.
As touched in my original post: I only trust myself and my closest friends (which is only a handful of people whom I've known for between 5-10 years). I do not trust my neighbors to that extent, sadly. Therefore, I won't even perform a quick test of the system in my driveway if I've recently fixed something - I'll go out for a quick drive rather than take the chance.
So your thanks is unwelcome, obviously, as I am not the inconsiderate asshole waking you up in the middle of the night as you were so quick to assume. And just as you are in your right to emit various RF signals (within reason), I am within my right to own a powerful speaker system both in my home and in my car. What I choose to do with it, and when and where I use it is what matters, and I've always understood and respected that fact.
My car has some niceties I have added on myself. While I certainly do not take my car to just any mechanic, there are some (rare) exceptions when it cannot go to my usual mechanic (i.e. warranty work I had done in the past). An example of once such feature is a very loud stereo system. I actually take the electronic toll pass, change, and especially the amplifiers, and sub woofers out of the car before taking it in because I know the volume would otherwise be maxed out when I get it back from the shop. I simply do not trust just anyone outside of myself and my close friends to have those items within their reach. Furthermore, I am also careful, as with anybody else, to only hand them the keys they need to operate the vehicle, and do not provide them with my house keys or keys to anything other than the car.
People need to take the same types of precautions with computers. If possible, back up your files elsewhere (i.e. optical media, portable hard drive) or consider using a network storage device (many home network storage devices are available now with RAID, and are not terribly high in price). Just as you would with a car, take out any money and private/personal belongings and put it elsewhere for while it is in the shop. Also, use different passwords for your logins than you use for your email accounts and the-like, as this is synonymous to only providing them with the key/keys they need.
I can hear Farnsworth already: "Maybe we bring all that debris down with some sort of space elevator!"
(I'm not aiming for this to be flamebait)
This really hits the point of the whole thing: to make research more interesting. In general, things we enjoy doing are interesting to us; and likewise, things that we do not enjoy are not. The idea is to explore means (in this case, to specifically think in new ways) in which research can instead become fun and therefore more interesting.
Personally, I feel that this is because too many are too short-sighted to see how the results of research can be fun, exciting, and very interesting. In a way, it could be made analogous to cooking: everybody loves to eat, but not everybody loves it enough to subsequently love cooking. In the end, I'm not sure that research can really be made any more fun than it already is; however, if making it seem more interesting (or even just making it less painful of a process) initially brings more people to exciting results which lead them to love it, then it's worth every bit of effort.
The ones that are as wealthy as they are because of what seems like a mental disorder. I know a multi-millionaire who strongly refused to purchase non-generic ketchup at the grocery store because it would have cost $0.06 more. It's strange, but this type of person gathers so much money and refuses to spend much more than the minimum necessary to survive, and does not even enjoy the money he or she saved. I'm no millionaire myself, but I honestly thought the person was joking at first. Once I realized it was no joke, Chris Rock's "good lord that's a lot o' money!" bit already came into mind and I had to fight off a giggle. For a little more depth, the house was a comfortable size (1 room for each person living there), but nearly every piece of furniture and clothing came from a local thrift store. So in summary, they were quite wealthy, yet lived as if it were really that necessary to stretch each and every penny to the greatest extent possible. Of the wealthy population, however, these folks definitely appear to be an exception.
I just realized this is a bit off-topic from the post, but you asked (though it was probably a rhetorical question), and I already finished typing my reply. :-)
Does it matter? I'm already gathering up as many stones as I can, and I suggest you do the same!
Kidding aside, how are we supposed to believe some information is selectively omitted? Also, how much is blatant disinformation? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... we all know how it goes. No government, person, or group of people in any position of power will ever have my trust, and I'll never simply believe their word.
I definately agree with you about prolly. I prolly misspell definately too much, but prolly not as often as others definately do.
Let them turn into toast. (as was said in "Only the Strong" =P)
...when I say if it is actually called "Earth 2.0" that I would seek Kevorkian's "assistance." (Joking, of course.) The moniker is used way too much! Instead, I feel we should call the planet "Godzilla" so it would be entertaining to hear people scream its name in excitement upon viewing it for the first time.
Please enlighten me as to what a "Ford Yarius" is, exactly. Toyota makes a "Yaris" - is that what you meant to reference? And small economy cars might be viewed as a "crappy toy car" by those who enjoy the luxury of large SUVs and sedans that are just as tank-like as the SUVs, but some people simple cannot afford or do not care to have the luxuries of those types of cars.
As for your argument, the truth is that "quality assurance" and "Microsoft" simply don't go together. More often than not, Microsoft releases software well before it is truly ready to be released to the public. Take Visual Studio 7.0 / 2002 for example - holy hell was that ever a piece of shit! But what I saw was everybody being so anxious to use this whole new ".NET" thing that would fix all the world's problems. Anybody who has had the need to write mixed C++ assemblies using Managed Extensions for C++ knows that it was a horrible piece of crap to start with, and that is also true for anybody who made the mistake of trying to run ASP.NET 1.0 applications in a high-traffic environment. Somehow, they got away with it, and admittedly, there is quality there now. The way I see it is that .NET 1.0 was alpha level code, 1.1 was beta level, and 2.0 should have been the 1.0. 3.0 is really more like a 2.5 as well.
Continuing on your argument regarding Microsoft's quality products, let's take a look at Windows. IMHO, this is where nobody shines brighter than Microsoft in making the definition of quality as clear as mud. If we look at the big picture here, Microsoft has always come in behind everyone else in technologies, yet had the audacity to successfully market this as "innovation." Let's jump back a ways: Long file names, woohoo! Forcing the kernel to be a layer between all hardware and drivers, woohoo! And more recently, let's ask the user to authorize access that could potentially compromise the system, "yay!" Microsoft says, "everybody should follow what the UAC is doing now" - yeah, suck my left nut, Microsoft. Unix-derived systems have had these features long before Microsoft has, and with better quality years ago from what Microsoft offers now. The only thing Microsoft did better than Unix-derived/inspired operating systems was GUI design, but I would say it is definitely time to revisit that with the current status of Gnome and KDE (my mother, near 60 years old and far from computer savvy has been using Ubuntu since 6.06. It's more reliable for her, she needs a less expensive PC, and she asks me questions less often!).
Finally, I'm going to finish blasting (or call me a troll if you want) your argument with the same note you touted. The Pontiac GrandAm, at least for some time (especially the mid and late 90's) was a horrible piece of crap that depreciated in value very quickly. The car cost the same as a Honda Accord at the time, which was a much better quality car. Somehow, however, GM still sold these cars like hot-cakes because people liked the way the car looked! Before making a purchase, they did not research what would hold more value over a few years, what would be more likely to still be running after a few years, and so on... It was an "American car" which was aesthetically pleasing, and that was all there was to making that decision. Don't tell me people bought that garbage because it was better quality than the Accord, because that was especially far from true at the time. The same thing has happened with many of the Microsoft products. Even if some of their products are quality products, not all of them are, but people shut out alternatives for a number of reasons: Microsoft does everything in its power (which is obviously excessive) to suppress alternatives, many people are too dumb to understand the differences with software, and many people (and I must say probably most) are too lazy to understand the differences with software.
I can see all the people who play FPS games on the Internet might misinterpret a "tea party" to be a "tea-bagging party" instead. However, that may prove to be even more incentive...
"Who fsking cares" is exactly the right question. My parents, grandparents, and many of my peers who know very little about computers don't care what operating system they are using on a computer. To them, a computer is a computer just the same, regardless of the operating system. The bottom line for them is the costs involved. How reliable is the computer? How long will it be until another computer must be purchased? How much up-front cost is required for the initial purchase?
To my mother, who I am proud to say has been using Linux since Ubuntu 6.06 was released, Linux seems more reliable. She still clicks on those goofy advertisement images that look like they have real buttons, but guess what - her machine doesn't need to be reformatted within a week after that takes place! So in her eyes, the machine is more reliable.
To my grandmother, she only wants to be able to talk to family via email. Why does she need to spend any more than the bare minimum? Will this machine be more likely to be usable until she is no longer physically capable of using a computer? That is more likely to be true with Linux than Windows while keeping the OS up-to-date.
And why not take this a little further... What if I'm a small company in need of some "thin client" computers. Why should I pay even a little extra for an operating system on 20 computers, when I can get it for free and completely avoid those fees (which would be a significant price difference, no doubt).
(Though this does not apply to the dell desktops directly, these could be used for this purpose...) John/Jane Doe wants to start a new business where a web-based application with a database is required. Why should he/she need to pay for a Windows server environment and Microsoft SQL Server licenses? The benefit here is clearly that a good deal of additional money can be focused on the business requirements, and not initial licensing costs.
Of course, I could present many more real-life examples I'm aware of... While that may not be a majority of the market, it is a solid start to appeal to these constituent groups, and it could to be quite lucrative long-term. Your needs are one thing, but I'm merely suggestion not being egocentric and suggesting we think of others' needs instead. Doing this will clearly benefit the entire community long-term.
Have you ever used a Linux music player such as Rythmbox or Amarok? These use SQLite, and do exceptionally well with dealing with a sizable database. Basically, SQLite is what MS Access was *supposed* to be in terms of a portable database file format, but instead it is a very good, successful implementation.
First off, everybody should have seen this coming - they did this with the first XBox console.
Second, what are the benefits (outside of copying games illegitimately and cheating) would you have by modding your XBox 360? I haven't had any incentive to purchase the 360 because outside of better graphics and new games, my old, mod'd XBox can provide me all the same functionality. At least with the first gen XBox, modding gave you DVD playback (without the need to purchase the stupid dongle), music and movie file playback (i.e. off a file server on the network), potential to install a full Linux distro like Xebian (and the potential to use it as a MythTV front-end), etc... I'm honestly curious to know how I could maximize my bang-for-my-buck by modding an XBox 360 - how else might I be able to use that hardware, similar to the old XBox?
Additionally, no matter how much they try, there will always be people bent on cheating in live. Playing Halo 2 over my friend's Live account a few times was a crumby experience for me with the abundance of cheaters out there (and no, I'm not saying that b/c I'm a sore looser, but there comes a point in time that it is horribly obvious somebody is cheating), but I'm not so optimistic this will help much. Honestly, I have never purchased a live account, and I don't ever intend to purchase one (which is part of why I won't purchase a 360 - for that and other reasons).
Well I suggest you check out a base Windows Vista install. A fresh installation of Vista in a VMWare machine yields approximately 7.16GB. ^_^ A complete Linux install (GNOME/KDE, apps, QT + GTK, etc...) still requires less than half that disk space.
Have we ruled out the possibility that Novell could be working with Microsoft on this as a marketing campaign? Consider that "oh it's scary that we use Linux, but if we really need it let's use Novell because that's safe for us" could be precisely what M$ and Novell want you to think. I'll be the first to admit I know nothing of Novell's business practices, but business is business, and sometimes that means people play extraordinarily dirty. Honestly, I would absolutely love to be proven that this is wrong, but I suspect it will still remain a possibility.
Why was this modded as troll - just because of the statement, "In some ways, Windows is a security hole"?
There is some truth in this, IMHO. An example of how one could consider this true is that Microsoft no longer offers patches for older versions of Windows. I understand it is at the users disgression to keep up to date with costly Windows updates and to keep up with patches, but I still maintain that there is some truth to this statement, even if it is only a little bit of truth. Furthermore, any OS (especially older versions) have vulnerabilities, in which case, one could clearly argue that any OS and any piece of software is a security hole. Also, a good point was made about how important it is to patch based on the possibility of escalation. Though a small device being compromised itself might be a small risk, it could escalate itself to being a high risk if it is possible to compromise another, more critical machine from the one that seemed to be a small risk. The key is to either not take any chances where possible, or be as diligent as reasonably possible to see through such risks outside of only the obvious.
Just let me have "My Briefcase" so I can synchronize my files with my floppy disk. There's no way this would be more successful a feature than that!
That's not true! When I first moved down to Florida in the early 90's, I saw a story about some guy who lost his peacock. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that bird is expensive and hard to come by, but I'm from New York, and nobody up there would care nearly enough to air something about that on television. Mabye things were better out west in St. Pete, but things were always that stupid around central FL!