Hell look at how many corps are still running XP even though its two versions behind!
Look how many people are using Firefox 3.6 even though it's 5 versions behind!
Versions are a pointless distinction. It's simply that XP runs what they need, how they wanted it, and Vista did not do one or both of these tasks. I personally remember a field test where a proprietary application would simply not run on Vista and had to be partially rewritten to accommodate the changes in folders, permissions, and other things.
It's like the whole debacle with Linux interfaces (Gnome 3/Unity/KDE4) You can't expect to change people's environment as drastically as they've been doing and not get backlash.
I think they could have handled it better. Approach it like a new branch of the OS (some Ubuntu derivative, or integrate it into the netbook edition) and let people decide what version they liked more. What they did was completely change the way people use their PCs without asking. (Making it default, even though it's not to a stage of completeness. Personally, I think they did that to "compete" with Gnome 3 over some kind of disagreement.)
Isn't that like complaining that Ford cannot make safe cars because you installed cheap plastic wheels? Sure, they are an essential part of the system (video/wheels) but if the manufacturer of that product can't be bothered to quality control, how can you blame Ford?
What happens if a bolt breaks loose and the car thinks it's turning one direction but it's moving in another. Did the bolt break before or after the crash? You'd need third party stories, metal analysis... it feels somehow more complicated.
Yep, and my joke was that people will race anything today... (Segway racing!) It doesn't have to be fast, good at cornering, or be considered for racing (School buses.) People will find entertainment in racing them.
Yeah, but it doesn't prevent people from racing minivans and othervehicles that you'd likely not see in a race. Heck, look at Nascar truck racing... or even Nascar itself for heavily modified racing.
All it should take is the ability of the user to drag/drop the photos from their personal folder to the application. The sandbox should take care of the rest. If you want a non-mouse (drag/drop) process, simply have a selection option to "share files/folders with..." where applications would be listed. I can think of about 3 more methods off the top of my head that would make it stupidly easy for the user to "grant" access to the files without having to know about the security, but making them aware that some application has access to those files.
Honestly, with over 90% market control, I think it should be mandated.
While you can uninstall everything in say Ubuntu that was because they set forth with that goal, but you could argue that even Ubuntu has a uninstallable text reader simple because in file previews it shows text (can you uninstall this feature, probably but I would likely find it hard to do anything above disabling it). If I had to guess I would say it is probably built into and inseparable to gnome, so should they be sued for anti-trust (which is almost the linux version of a OS)?
gedit (http://projects.gnome.org/gedit/) is the default editor and it can be easily replaced and/or removed. I personally use an alternative and removed gedit. Granted, it is a bit confusing with the some repos since removing gedit usually flags the "container" package so you may thing you are removing more. It's completely possible to run Gnome without gedit though. Heck, you can even test this yourself by downloading the Ubuntu live CD, go into Synaptic and uncheck it or type "sudo apt-get remove gedit" and it will gladly remove the editor.
Windows however, throws a hissy fit if you try to delete/replace Notepad.exe
Sure, there's no renewal offers, but I get silly/annoying/persistent popups all the time telling me I need to reboot. It's worse if you don't enable the protection since it likes to throw up a big red shield telling you how unprotected you are.
What would be so bad about sandboxing non-repository applications? You could download "Angry_Birds_2.deb" to your heart's content, but it wouldn't have any access to the rest of the PC.
File compression is slowly (too slowly?) becoming part of the OS. Go the next step, include per file compression in the OS file system.
For the most part, people use compression utilities to decompress files off the Internet. (I'm guessing on that, but I feel safe in that guess.) The browser could include an decompression plugin to do it automatically. For those that would like to compress files, I would fall back on the aspect of being part of the OS itself.
The granting access part is the big question. Personally, I think that files should not be presented to programs in directory trees anyway. They should have to request files by name and allow the OS to retrieve the file (perhaps also duplicate it in a reference for update later or keep version controlled copies) and present it to the app. There's really no need for any application on my computer to have full list access to the library folders and/or all files on a machine. If they need access to a specific file, they will know the name. The requested files could be compiled by the OS and linked in a/system/ folder within the application sandbox. Any commands run by those libraries would be restricted to that sandbox and follow the same rules. The initial run will take time to build up needed links, but each subsequent run would not be affected. Programs that request files that do not exist or are not in "shared" (common libraries...) directories should be marked as possibly broken and/or harmful.
Forcing an application to request files by name forces the user to grant permission to files (The user can specify the file name or even drag/drop the file into the application. Now the OS will know that X app has access to Y file and can provide a link inside the sandbox) and provide the file name to the application which can now access the link created by the OS in it's "/data/" folder.
A side affect is that the OS will now know what files are being used by most apps and which files are never used for archiving and programming for systems is easier since you only need to know that the user granted data is in/data and system files are in/system.
You have some points I agree with, but I have to ask: If you set term limits on government work and prevent someone from leaving a financial position in government to work in the financial sector with something they know and have worked with, where will they work? (eg. Let's say I know the ins and outs of computer programming and am assigned to regulate some fictitious regulatory board on computer programming standards. When I leave the regulatory job, would I be forced to work in a grocery store so I don't muddle with my future work?)
While fine in intent, restricting freedom of speech to exclude hate speech only leads to restricting other types of speech. That's how we get into this whole mess of political correctness. If left unchecked, anything different/new could be considered harmful to people [society] and banned/restricted. Books, newspapers, etc. Some people would even go as far to say that we need to make Fox News illegal because it disagrees with their world view.
It's not nice to spout obscenities, but I don't think it's the place of the government to monitor/regulate speech. We need to learn how to tune these people out.
Technically, you do own a server*. Otherwise you could not have posted. That machine you used to post IS a part of the Internet.
If fiber to the home was a municipal provided utility, you would be part of the Internet. There's really no need to have an ISP if every home could pay a utility cost to be part of a network (and thus, be part of the Internet.)
(* Unless you are posting from a library or someone else's PC.)
I don't even think appending The First to include electronic medium is necessary. All it would do is prevent the government from making a law to inhibit electronic speech which should be protected by the fact that it's speech. It wouldn't protect people from being throttled on the Internet (because, like you stated, an ISP[bar] could say that it will serve this type of traffic[ladies] cheaper on Tuesdays.)
IMHO, I think this whole movement is a plot to get free Internet to everyone. While a noble goal to grant everyone access to the tool, it's going about it the wrong way. They should be fighting to cut down the local cable/phone monopolies so more ISPs can compete and drive the price down. Alternatively, turn fiber into a public utility. If done nationwide, ISP would be a deprecated term. (Why would you need an ISP if you are part of the Internet?)
Slashdot Mirror
Hell look at how many corps are still running XP even though its two versions behind!
Look how many people are using Firefox 3.6 even though it's 5 versions behind!
Versions are a pointless distinction. It's simply that XP runs what they need, how they wanted it, and Vista did not do one or both of these tasks. I personally remember a field test where a proprietary application would simply not run on Vista and had to be partially rewritten to accommodate the changes in folders, permissions, and other things.
It's like the whole debacle with Linux interfaces (Gnome 3/Unity/KDE4) You can't expect to change people's environment as drastically as they've been doing and not get backlash.
I think they could have handled it better. Approach it like a new branch of the OS (some Ubuntu derivative, or integrate it into the netbook edition) and let people decide what version they liked more. What they did was completely change the way people use their PCs without asking. (Making it default, even though it's not to a stage of completeness. Personally, I think they did that to "compete" with Gnome 3 over some kind of disagreement.)
Who said that's okay?
Isn't that like complaining that Ford cannot make safe cars because you installed cheap plastic wheels? Sure, they are an essential part of the system (video/wheels) but if the manufacturer of that product can't be bothered to quality control, how can you blame Ford?
(Woo! Car analogy.)
Just to be safe, you should store your data as XML elements in the fields of the same name:
select id from table
<id>1</id>
<id>2</id>
Cool, talking trains! ;)
What would truly worry me is the post stating they died and their license was still active...
There's no money in that! Speeding tickets are lucrative and will be replaced with "riding while inattentive."
What happens if a bolt breaks loose and the car thinks it's turning one direction but it's moving in another. Did the bolt break before or after the crash? You'd need third party stories, metal analysis... it feels somehow more complicated.
Yep, and my joke was that people will race anything today... (Segway racing!) It doesn't have to be fast, good at cornering, or be considered for racing (School buses.) People will find entertainment in racing them.
Yeah, but it doesn't prevent people from racing minivans and other vehicles that you'd likely not see in a race. Heck, look at Nascar truck racing... or even Nascar itself for heavily modified racing.
You joke, but you know it's coming...
All it should take is the ability of the user to drag/drop the photos from their personal folder to the application. The sandbox should take care of the rest. If you want a non-mouse (drag/drop) process, simply have a selection option to "share files/folders with..." where applications would be listed. I can think of about 3 more methods off the top of my head that would make it stupidly easy for the user to "grant" access to the files without having to know about the security, but making them aware that some application has access to those files.
And you cannot expect MS to be saints.
Honestly, with over 90% market control, I think it should be mandated.
While you can uninstall everything in say Ubuntu that was because they set forth with that goal, but you could argue that even Ubuntu has a uninstallable text reader simple because in file previews it shows text (can you uninstall this feature, probably but I would likely find it hard to do anything above disabling it).
If I had to guess I would say it is probably built into and inseparable to gnome, so should they be sued for anti-trust (which is almost the linux version of a OS)?
gedit (http://projects.gnome.org/gedit/) is the default editor and it can be easily replaced and/or removed. I personally use an alternative and removed gedit. Granted, it is a bit confusing with the some repos since removing gedit usually flags the "container" package so you may thing you are removing more. It's completely possible to run Gnome without gedit though. Heck, you can even test this yourself by downloading the Ubuntu live CD, go into Synaptic and uncheck it or type "sudo apt-get remove gedit" and it will gladly remove the editor.
Windows however, throws a hissy fit if you try to delete/replace Notepad.exe
Sure, there's no renewal offers, but I get silly/annoying/persistent popups all the time telling me I need to reboot. It's worse if you don't enable the protection since it likes to throw up a big red shield telling you how unprotected you are.
What would be so bad about sandboxing non-repository applications? You could download "Angry_Birds_2.deb" to your heart's content, but it wouldn't have any access to the rest of the PC.
File compression is slowly (too slowly?) becoming part of the OS. Go the next step, include per file compression in the OS file system.
For the most part, people use compression utilities to decompress files off the Internet. (I'm guessing on that, but I feel safe in that guess.) The browser could include an decompression plugin to do it automatically. For those that would like to compress files, I would fall back on the aspect of being part of the OS itself.
The granting access part is the big question. Personally, I think that files should not be presented to programs in directory trees anyway. They should have to request files by name and allow the OS to retrieve the file (perhaps also duplicate it in a reference for update later or keep version controlled copies) and present it to the app. There's really no need for any application on my computer to have full list access to the library folders and/or all files on a machine. If they need access to a specific file, they will know the name. The requested files could be compiled by the OS and linked in a /system/ folder within the application sandbox. Any commands run by those libraries would be restricted to that sandbox and follow the same rules. The initial run will take time to build up needed links, but each subsequent run would not be affected. Programs that request files that do not exist or are not in "shared" (common libraries...) directories should be marked as possibly broken and/or harmful.
Forcing an application to request files by name forces the user to grant permission to files (The user can specify the file name or even drag/drop the file into the application. Now the OS will know that X app has access to Y file and can provide a link inside the sandbox) and provide the file name to the application which can now access the link created by the OS in it's "/data/" folder.
A side affect is that the OS will now know what files are being used by most apps and which files are never used for archiving and programming for systems is easier since you only need to know that the user granted data is in /data and system files are in /system.
Your password requires at least one numeric character and must be changed once every 30 days. You are not permitted to use the same password twice.
Now, go back to some machine you were at 6 months ago and try to remember what password you used.
At my previous employer we started using the month at the end of our passwords so IT implemented a 24 password history... I just moved to 'yydd'.
You have some points I agree with, but I have to ask: If you set term limits on government work and prevent someone from leaving a financial position in government to work in the financial sector with something they know and have worked with, where will they work? (eg. Let's say I know the ins and outs of computer programming and am assigned to regulate some fictitious regulatory board on computer programming standards. When I leave the regulatory job, would I be forced to work in a grocery store so I don't muddle with my future work?)
That is not what an "inalienable right" is. You should try looking up the meaning of things before making pronouncements.
So, I just looked it up. In the California constitution, it includes:
That fits the grandparent's definition just fine. The state can't stop you acquiring property...
Unless it's illegal property? Isn't it still illegal in California to acquire pot without special permission?
While fine in intent, restricting freedom of speech to exclude hate speech only leads to restricting other types of speech. That's how we get into this whole mess of political correctness. If left unchecked, anything different/new could be considered harmful to people [society] and banned/restricted. Books, newspapers, etc. Some people would even go as far to say that we need to make Fox News illegal because it disagrees with their world view.
It's not nice to spout obscenities, but I don't think it's the place of the government to monitor/regulate speech. We need to learn how to tune these people out.
Technically, you do own a server*. Otherwise you could not have posted. That machine you used to post IS a part of the Internet.
If fiber to the home was a municipal provided utility, you would be part of the Internet. There's really no need to have an ISP if every home could pay a utility cost to be part of a network (and thus, be part of the Internet.)
(* Unless you are posting from a library or someone else's PC.)
I don't even think appending The First to include electronic medium is necessary. All it would do is prevent the government from making a law to inhibit electronic speech which should be protected by the fact that it's speech. It wouldn't protect people from being throttled on the Internet (because, like you stated, an ISP[bar] could say that it will serve this type of traffic[ladies] cheaper on Tuesdays.)
IMHO, I think this whole movement is a plot to get free Internet to everyone. While a noble goal to grant everyone access to the tool, it's going about it the wrong way. They should be fighting to cut down the local cable/phone monopolies so more ISPs can compete and drive the price down. Alternatively, turn fiber into a public utility. If done nationwide, ISP would be a deprecated term. (Why would you need an ISP if you are part of the Internet?)
For instance...
See: http://nodejs.org/
JavaScript outside the browser.