I guess that the problem Apple has with this is that when one person starts doing it, then others will follow.
Before you know it, the entire store is full of useless apps selling for ridiculous prices. This of course makes the entire store look ridiculous, thus lowering the value of the store in total.
Considering what you say: If California were to use a modern system. Wouldn't it just take exactly as much time to implement this feature as it takes them now?
I know from my own experience that in the business world, half a year isn't really that long.
Perhaps the problem really isn't so much COBOL related, but just that this is an exceptionally weird thing to do.
Perhaps if they'd used SAP (or any other brand for that matter) for their payroll, it might even take them 1 year to implement this. Think about all of the communication, contract, designing, programming, bugfixing and delays. This all quickly adds up. In this case they seem to be able to implement the feature in-house, which tends to be a lot quicker.
Actually, MS compatibility is only an illusion since the compatibility is only partial. Often older software starts having a lot of issues. I have seen win95 applications break on Windows XP on more than one occasion. Not to mention the numerous XP applications that break on Windows Vista.
Sure, with simple applications you might be lucky. But more complex applications very often have all kinds of weird issues. And also please realize that the Win 3.1 era is only 14 years ago. Which really isn't that long ago.
Antivirus software in most cases isn't going to do anything if there is no signature in their database matching the program being downloaded/executed.
If you write a virus yourself, the signature won't be in the scanner and therefore it will not detect it.
So: If you want to install a keylogger on someone's computer without the scanner detecting is, then write it yourself and you'll be sure it'll slip right past the scanner. Therefore: We can conclude that a virus scanner doesn't nearly provide the kind of protection it claims to provide.
Quote: "Why do you Windows users think that enduring this sort of shitfight just to install your OS of choice is acceptable?"
First, let me inform you that I'm primarily a Linux user and XP (or any other MS OS) is not the OS of my choice in any way. But one of my tasks is keeping workstations running.
Second, the topic is "What does it take to get a PC with XP?" and I (IMHO) explained the easiest procedure for this.
Third, unfortunately there are a lot of client side enterprise applications that aren't available for Linux.
Forth, you're welcome suggesting a better solution.
Fifth, I totally agree with you. But I just had to respond to your post since you referred to me as "you Windows users". I think that vendor lock-in as well as ignorance are the primary reasons for people putting up with this kind of situation.
You can just purchase a PC with vista business or "higher". Then just install Windows XP on it. When prompted for an activation code, just use a code from another PC. Then you'll find it often won't activate through the internet, so you call Microsoft on the number displayed on the screen. Then you'll get a representative and you'll them him/her you're downgrading from windows vista business to XP. On rare occasions they'll ask you for the Windows vista business license code. Next, you'll get the code by phone and just activate it.
We use this procedure all the time on all of our new computers.
This also reflects my experiences with Palm support, it was horrible. I vowed never to purchase a Palm device again. And since I mostly decide on the purchasing policy within the company, they've lost quite a few sales.
It's absolutely no surprise to me that Palm isn't doing well financially, customers demand proper support or they'll stop purchasing products from the company in question.
I actually have a 24mbit/1248kbit ADSL connection (I live in Europe), which works great. The problem is not with the technology, it's with the infrastructure. To deliver a quality DSL connection, the infrastructure needs to be in a perfect shape.
Also, lots of deaths involving guns are accidents or happen in the spur of the moment. And that's exactly the reason why having guns lying around is not a good idea at all.
Where I live, guns are illegal (much more illegal than drugs) and that makes me feel save. I don't have to worry about someone suddenly pulling a gun on me, since those chances are actually very slim.
Was it by any chance a consumer laptop instead of a business laptop?
I've found the consumer warranty service to be extremely crappy. On the other hand, the warranty service on their business products is excellent as long as you have the proper maintenance contracts (if/when required).
IMHO, in the long run a subscription based anti-spam solution is the only way to go. Spam is mutating every day and having to keep up with it yourself is an exhausting task. So you'll have to treat the spam problem as you do with viruses: purchase a subscription product that is updated daily.
We're using Astaro Mail Security (www.astaro.com), which works great. Spam is down to a minimum, and it delivers much better results than open source solution I had in place before that. FYI: I receive about 300 spam messages a day and only once in a few days one or two messages slip through with the solution mentioned above.
But please note that there are a lot of different anti-spam vendors, all with their own advantages/disadvantages, price tag and quality.
In my personal experience, while I'm a big fan of open source, open source anti-spam solutions require too much configuration and maintenance to really be practical in the long run. But your mileage may vary depending on the requirements your company sets forth.
I wonder how the others look like. A lot of them look like you'll grow RSI within one month. I actually prefer my own office with an ergonomic setup, a proper adjustable office chair, large windows and a door.
I've had some bad issues with RST packets in the past which were generated by the modem or whatever. Also back in the day they were frequently used to disconnect people from IRC.
These issues can be solved easily by filtering those packets. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP (Please correct me if the command isn't entirely correct.)
It might fix the entire problem, it would be worth a try.
Quote: "I'm afraid I just don't get what is fundamentally missing here. What is missing from the puzzle for being a "desktop"?"
Mainly, a lot of important business applications don't run or are not support on Linux: Autocad, Photoshop, GIS For example the client side of the ERP system our company is using also doesn't support it.
This is exactly why the yearofthelinuxdesktop isn't happening. Linux needs perfect Windows emulation for these kind of applications and it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.
PS: I run Linux on my desktop at home and I love it.
Quote: "As far as OS X is concerned, there has been good development on the desktop (ok, leave time machine out of this;-)) and they have a good OS and it's gaining market share fast. 4%-7% in 2 years. Not bad. Why isn't that happening with Linux at all?"
Linux is growing on the desktop market as well. (And it's booming on the server market btw) But the main issue for Linux (and other OS' in general) is the following: Most products are only released for Windows. i.e.: I can't deploy Linux workstations in our company because Autocad, and many more specialist applications don't support it.
It's a chicken and egg problem really. The situation is improving over the years, but it's going way to slowly on the desktop market because of the above problem. If Windows would have been a UNIX variant, it would have been very easy for company's to port their products. But unfortunately, MS has intentionally made it extremely hard to port Windows software to Linux or any other OS.
Quote: "Uh, what? It's a technical limit decided by the division of line frequencies [wikipedia.org]."
Correct. But also, internet provider tend to sell upstream bandwidth for a higher price. And they are therefore able to sell downstream bandwidth quite cheap.
The market is broken in the US, because the political system is being sponsored by corporations. Also, Americans are against government regulation by nature (so I have been thought). Add to this the monopoly that appears to exists on last-mile connectivity and you've got yourself a broken market.
In Europe on the other hand, these issues have been fixed years ago and we've got very good internet connectivity for a very fair amount. This has been made possible by a political system that can withstand monopolists and by the fact we turn to our government to solve almost any of our issues. The government therefore actually forced the market open by brute force and lots of high fines. This took years and wasn't easy, but the results are well worth the effort.
Last-mile connectivity actually isn't a problem at all. The cable (2-wire copper) is already there and you can reach 24mbit/1048kbit with ADSL2.
The problem lies in the upstream connections, when people start down-/uploading 24/7. This is why fiber connections to the home actually aren't going to solve anything. They're just terribly expensive since they're going to have to dig and put in a new cable.
In the Netherlands, we actually have the following system that works -really- well: - The former monopolist was forced to rent the last mile of copper to the home for 10 Euro's per month to other company's. The 10 Euro is only required when the user does not use the phone service of the former monopolist, if you do use the phone service the rental is free for DSL connectivity; - We have company's that deliver the infrastructure from the telco stations to the internet provider; - The internet provider delivers the bandwidth to from that point to the internet exchange.
This adds up to an internet connection of 24mbit/1048kbit for about 50 dollars. But there is a fair use policy that prevents people from over-using their internet connectivity. But since the policy is actually *FAIR* it isn't any problem at all.
The entire concept behind the internet is to be able to oversell. The entire protocol is build in such a way that it's still usable even when there is more demand than offering.
I strongly believe it's the responsibility of the users to only use a reasonable amount of bandwidth.
This means: - Stop video streams when you're not watching; - Stop audio streams when you're not listening; - Don't keep the P2P software running 24/7/365, and throttle your upload speed; - Don't download stuff you have no use for.
On the other hand, I have understood that the offering in the US isn't nearly as good as in Europe (where I can actually download with 1.8Megabyte p/s for a very reasonable amount per month). So US residents are in their good right to complain, the arguments used by some people however are not reasonable.
However, while I can download with 1.8Megabyte p/s I don't download more then I did when I had a limit of 600KB/s, it's just faster. Users play an important role in making the price model work.
Indeed, my eyes start to hurt when looking at a 60Hz screen for more than 30 seconds. I can spot a 60Hz monitor from across the room and always warn users about it and correct the settings immediately.
But apparently, many people can't see the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that the problem Apple has with this is that when one person starts doing it, then others will follow.
Before you know it, the entire store is full of useless apps selling for ridiculous prices. This of course makes the entire store look ridiculous, thus lowering the value of the store in total.
Considering what you say:
If California were to use a modern system. Wouldn't it just take exactly as much time to implement this feature as it takes them now?
I know from my own experience that in the business world, half a year isn't really that long.
Perhaps the problem really isn't so much COBOL related, but just that this is an exceptionally weird thing to do.
Perhaps if they'd used SAP (or any other brand for that matter) for their payroll, it might even take them 1 year to implement this. Think about all of the communication, contract, designing, programming, bugfixing and delays. This all quickly adds up. In this case they seem to be able to implement the feature in-house, which tends to be a lot quicker.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, MS compatibility is only an illusion since the compatibility is only partial. Often older software starts having a lot of issues. I have seen win95 applications break on Windows XP on more than one occasion.
Not to mention the numerous XP applications that break on Windows Vista.
Sure, with simple applications you might be lucky. But more complex applications very often have all kinds of weird issues.
And also please realize that the Win 3.1 era is only 14 years ago. Which really isn't that long ago.
Antivirus software in most cases isn't going to do anything if there is no signature in their database matching the program being downloaded/executed.
If you write a virus yourself, the signature won't be in the scanner and therefore it will not detect it.
So: If you want to install a keylogger on someone's computer without the scanner detecting is, then write it yourself and you'll be sure it'll slip right past the scanner.
Therefore: We can conclude that a virus scanner doesn't nearly provide the kind of protection it claims to provide.
Quote: "Why do you Windows users think that enduring this sort of shitfight just to install your OS of choice is acceptable?"
First, let me inform you that I'm primarily a Linux user and XP (or any other MS OS) is not the OS of my choice in any way. But one of my tasks is keeping workstations running.
Second, the topic is "What does it take to get a PC with XP?" and I (IMHO) explained the easiest procedure for this.
Third, unfortunately there are a lot of client side enterprise applications that aren't available for Linux.
Forth, you're welcome suggesting a better solution.
Fifth, I totally agree with you. But I just had to respond to your post since you referred to me as "you Windows users". I think that vendor lock-in as well as ignorance are the primary reasons for people putting up with this kind of situation.
You can just purchase a PC with vista business or "higher". Then just install Windows XP on it. When prompted for an activation code, just use a code from another PC.
Then you'll find it often won't activate through the internet, so you call Microsoft on the number displayed on the screen. Then you'll get a representative and you'll them him/her you're downgrading from windows vista business to XP.
On rare occasions they'll ask you for the Windows vista business license code. Next, you'll get the code by phone and just activate it.
We use this procedure all the time on all of our new computers.
This also reflects my experiences with Palm support, it was horrible. I vowed never to purchase a Palm device again. And since I mostly decide on the purchasing policy within the company, they've lost quite a few sales.
It's absolutely no surprise to me that Palm isn't doing well financially, customers demand proper support or they'll stop purchasing products from the company in question.
I actually have a 24mbit/1248kbit ADSL connection (I live in Europe), which works great. The problem is not with the technology, it's with the infrastructure. To deliver a quality DSL connection, the infrastructure needs to be in a perfect shape.
That's just crap.
Just look at this, the USA is high everywhere:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231
Also, lots of deaths involving guns are accidents or happen in the spur of the moment. And that's exactly the reason why having guns lying around is not a good idea at all.
Where I live, guns are illegal (much more illegal than drugs) and that makes me feel save. I don't have to worry about someone suddenly pulling a gun on me, since those chances are actually very slim.
Was it by any chance a consumer laptop instead of a business laptop?
I've found the consumer warranty service to be extremely crappy. On the other hand, the warranty service on their business products is excellent as long as you have the proper maintenance contracts (if/when required).
IMHO, in the long run a subscription based anti-spam solution is the only way to go. Spam is mutating every day and having to keep up with it yourself is an exhausting task. So you'll have to treat the spam problem as you do with viruses: purchase a subscription product that is updated daily.
We're using Astaro Mail Security (www.astaro.com), which works great. Spam is down to a minimum, and it delivers much better results than open source solution I had in place before that.
FYI: I receive about 300 spam messages a day and only once in a few days one or two messages slip through with the solution mentioned above.
But please note that there are a lot of different anti-spam vendors, all with their own advantages/disadvantages, price tag and quality.
In my personal experience, while I'm a big fan of open source, open source anti-spam solutions require too much configuration and maintenance to really be practical in the long run. But your mileage may vary depending on the requirements your company sets forth.
I wonder how the others look like.
A lot of them look like you'll grow RSI within one month. I actually prefer my own office with an ergonomic setup, a proper adjustable office chair, large windows and a door.
I've had some bad issues with RST packets in the past which were generated by the modem or whatever. Also back in the day they were frequently used to disconnect people from IRC.
These issues can be solved easily by filtering those packets.
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP
(Please correct me if the command isn't entirely correct.)
It might fix the entire problem, it would be worth a try.
It's in the comment: "ksplice requires no kernel modifications"
So yes, ksplice can be installed/used without rebooting.
You can always download the Linux binary version of firefox. Just untar it to /opt/firefox2 and start running.
Also, it's easy to delete when you don't need it anymore and are ready to switch to version 3.
I thought that the entire idea of the XO was for people to be able to just dive in and develop stuff for themselves?
Clearly the initiative has lost track of their priorities.
Yes, because we all know that once things start to go better they'll have plenty of cash to pay through their nose for absurd MS licensing fees.
Quote: "I'm afraid I just don't get what is fundamentally missing here. What is missing from the puzzle for being a "desktop"?"
Mainly, a lot of important business applications don't run or are not support on Linux: Autocad, Photoshop, GIS
For example the client side of the ERP system our company is using also doesn't support it.
This is exactly why the yearofthelinuxdesktop isn't happening. Linux needs perfect Windows emulation for these kind of applications and it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.
PS: I run Linux on my desktop at home and I love it.
Quote: "As far as OS X is concerned, there has been good development on the desktop (ok, leave time machine out of this ;-)) and they have a good OS and it's gaining market share fast. 4%-7% in 2 years. Not bad. Why isn't that happening with Linux at all?"
Linux is growing on the desktop market as well. (And it's booming on the server market btw) But the main issue for Linux (and other OS' in general) is the following: Most products are only released for Windows.
i.e.: I can't deploy Linux workstations in our company because Autocad, and many more specialist applications don't support it.
It's a chicken and egg problem really. The situation is improving over the years, but it's going way to slowly on the desktop market because of the above problem.
If Windows would have been a UNIX variant, it would have been very easy for company's to port their products. But unfortunately, MS has intentionally made it extremely hard to port Windows software to Linux or any other OS.
Quote: "Uh, what? It's a technical limit decided by the division of line frequencies [wikipedia.org]."
Correct. But also, internet provider tend to sell upstream bandwidth for a higher price. And they are therefore able to sell downstream bandwidth quite cheap.
The market is broken in the US, because the political system is being sponsored by corporations. Also, Americans are against government regulation by nature (so I have been thought). Add to this the monopoly that appears to exists on last-mile connectivity and you've got yourself a broken market.
In Europe on the other hand, these issues have been fixed years ago and we've got very good internet connectivity for a very fair amount. This has been made possible by a political system that can withstand monopolists and by the fact we turn to our government to solve almost any of our issues. The government therefore actually forced the market open by brute force and lots of high fines. This took years and wasn't easy, but the results are well worth the effort.
Last-mile connectivity actually isn't a problem at all. The cable (2-wire copper) is already there and you can reach 24mbit/1048kbit with ADSL2.
The problem lies in the upstream connections, when people start down-/uploading 24/7. This is why fiber connections to the home actually aren't going to solve anything. They're just terribly expensive since they're going to have to dig and put in a new cable.
In the Netherlands, we actually have the following system that works -really- well:
- The former monopolist was forced to rent the last mile of copper to the home for 10 Euro's per month to other company's. The 10 Euro is only required when the user does not use the phone service of the former monopolist, if you do use the phone service the rental is free for DSL connectivity;
- We have company's that deliver the infrastructure from the telco stations to the internet provider;
- The internet provider delivers the bandwidth to from that point to the internet exchange.
This adds up to an internet connection of 24mbit/1048kbit for about 50 dollars. But there is a fair use policy that prevents people from over-using their internet connectivity. But since the policy is actually *FAIR* it isn't any problem at all.
The entire concept behind the internet is to be able to oversell. The entire protocol is build in such a way that it's still usable even when there is more demand than offering.
I strongly believe it's the responsibility of the users to only use a reasonable amount of bandwidth.
This means:
- Stop video streams when you're not watching;
- Stop audio streams when you're not listening;
- Don't keep the P2P software running 24/7/365, and throttle your upload speed;
- Don't download stuff you have no use for.
On the other hand, I have understood that the offering in the US isn't nearly as good as in Europe (where I can actually download with 1.8Megabyte p/s for a very reasonable amount per month). So US residents are in their good right to complain, the arguments used by some people however are not reasonable.
However, while I can download with 1.8Megabyte p/s I don't download more then I did when I had a limit of 600KB/s, it's just faster. Users play an important role in making the price model work.
Indeed, my eyes start to hurt when looking at a 60Hz screen for more than 30 seconds. I can spot a 60Hz monitor from across the room and always warn users about it and correct the settings immediately.
But apparently, many people can't see the difference.