Though in fairness, they're probably ALL flash crashes. Perhaps the GP is experiencing the same thing. Or trolling? If he has pasted his logs in here, we'd know for sure.
I would actually credit Microsoft for that, not Firefox. If IE didn't suck so bad, I doubt people would be flocking to Firefox. I mean, Firefox is not some messiah of a browser. It's okay, and I use it everyday. But it still has its issues.
IE is losing popularity because Microsoft sat on their hands for so long with IE6, which, frankly, sucked. Firefox could have never competed if MS had began development of IE7 just after they released 6. We'd probably be on IE 9 oe 10 by now. And honestly, if they could maintain the same levels of improvement with each release, I really think IE 10 would be better than Firefox 3.
In a way, Microsoft is its own worst enemy. Don't get me wrong, I really like Firefox. But I feel like it's coming into the market was more opportunistic than competitive. With IE7 out, and 8 almost out, that's not necessarily true anymore. But the image of IE = suck and FF = 1337 is already out there, and it's going to continue to exist even if (or when) IE becomes a worthwhile pile of bits.
I think this is called the Doctrine of First Sale.
For example:
I buy a copy of a book.
I cross out some passages, and write some new text into the margins. I then rebind the book into a different cover.
Am I legally allowed to resale the book?
How does this differ from reselling a copy of software, with modifications.
If I were to just sell OSX straight out to people, then that's piracy. But if I buy a copy of it first, I can then resell that copy that I have purchased.
Or another comparison -- a car analogy -- is the think of the sale of limousines. You take the original car, modify it, then resell it.
Of course, there are ways around even what you suggest. For example, when you buy a Psystar, you are actually billed for a full copy of OSX and some hardware, then billed for labor for hiring a technician as Psystar to install it for you, including any hacks to make it run.
The bottom line is: the only argument Apple really has is that it's illegal for Psystar to modify OSX. Being able to resell OSX -- in any condition -- is legal, and I don't think anyone is going to challenge that.
Yeah, but if you have the wrong OS, chances are you're not going to have the problem mentioned in the KB. KBs that affect multiple versions of Windows probably have all the fixes in a single MSI, and the installer logic picks which one to install.
It's really not that hard to run XP (or 2000, or 98 or DOS) in a virtual machine. Microsoft even already has that technology. They just need to integrate it seamlessly into the OS.
You can't get more "backwards compatible" than virtualizing the old version of the OS. If you did that, it would run EXACTLY as it did.
Or you could just do what we do here. We have some old software and hardware that worked on Windows 95. So we keep a couple boxes running with Windows 95. Problem solved. It's ONLY used for that using a piece of hardware, so it's really not an issue as far as management goes. They aren't even hooked up to the network.
This is NOT true by and large anymore. Microsoft came out with Microsoft Installer a long time ago. When you run an "MSI" file, you are actually running msiexec, which is a package manager for Windows.
Many apps wrap the MSI in an executable that first checks to see if Microsoft Installer is installed, because in older systems, it didn't come by default. But still, it's often just as easy to run the MSI, or to download the MSI.
In the past, what you said was true. And a lot of software still uses the old way of installing. But most have moved to MSI based installs. Even on linux, not every piece of software gets installed from a package of that distro's flavor (rpm, deb, etc.). Some apps still get installed "manually".
What MSI doesn't have that most linux package managers have is an interface to a repository of softwares you can download and install with one command. That's because most software for Windows is proprietary, and not freely available to distributable.
However someone COULD create such a repository and an front-end for it.
It's also not as "friendly" as the linux managers, because it's meant to work quietly behind the scenes. But it's really not that hard to work with, there just isn't a set of tools (beyond the command line) to work with it out of the box.
Have you installed OpenOffice lately? It's a beast, too. But I digress.
Office itself it designed as almost an application framework that gets installed or "added on" to the OS. The apps that sit on top of it (Word, Excel, etc.) are merely front-ends to that framework.
Consider these possibilities:
1)Installs drivers, system extensions, or shared libraries to the SYSTEM directories.
2)Installs common executable code to a common PROGRAM FILES directory.
3)Saves user-specific data to the USER'S REGISTRY.
4)Saves common data to the SYSTEM REGISTRY.
5)Saves data to the USER'S HOME DIRECTORY.
All right, so #1, #2, and #4 require admin rights. This SHOULD only happen ONE time, when you're installing software. Everything else can happen with normal user privs.
However, here is where it gets sticky:
6)Saves data to PROGRAM FILES directory.
I have seen a lot of applications do #6. I would say #6 is probably 90% of the problems people have with running as a normal user. And I can say without a doubt that every case of #6 is because developers didn't writer their software correctly for Windows.
Microsoft tried to fix this problem, and they came up with a very clever and well-implemented way of doing so in Vista, even if it is complicated.
What do they do? They create a "virtual" program files directory in the user's home folder, where the user has full permission. So if I am the admin, and I install a piece of software to PROGRAM FILES, and user 1 runs it and it tries to save some data to PROGRAM FILES, it will actually write the data in the user's "virtual" program files directory in his home.
User 2 logs in and doesn't see any of user 1's data. Admin and log in and not see any of user 2's data. Admin CAN go into user 1's home directory and find the data, but it's NOT stored in program files.
There are some quirks, but for the most part, it works well. Of course, the virtual program files only works with UAC on.
I actually used it effectively to create a login on my PC for a friend, so he would play WoW. He could login and change his settings, Addons, or whatever, and all the changed files got put in his virtual program files directory. None of my settings were affected.
Even though WoW is a huge culprit of #6, it's not a problem in Vista.
However he still couldn't install AIM. I'm not sure why, I didn't test it. Not that I cared, I didn't really want AIM on there anyway. Probably because AIM needed admin rights to install common registry settings.
As the GP said, this is mostly because of lazy software developers that didn't write the software to INSTALL as admin, but RUN as user. Of course, this is changing, and most new software plays nice. But it's amazing how much software out there doesn't.
This is true of XP. However Microsoft realized people wanted a reference calender, and so they changed it in Vista so that it would also function as a reference calender.
You say not with today's technology, but that's exactly what TFA is talking about. The GP does have a valid point: if it's more profitable to sell HAART than something more effective, why would they sell the something better?
Or they'll do what a lot of other industries do and have lots of things "in the works", but release them on a slow schedule, so as to milk maximum profits out of their investments.
You haven't been paying attention. Managers in places like that make fair money, and they are often paid in relatively large bonuses based on particular metrics for that company. Things like food cost, speed of service, customer satisfactions surveys, and surprise anonymous audits are common.
If a manager can come into a faltering store, double its profits and make customers happy, that manager is going to be making pretty good money. Managers can't do that without good employees. And in that industry, you can't even bait in good employees with better pay. The difference between a new hire and the "assitant manager" or "shift leader" might be a couple dollars and hour, max.
So fast food managers have to work really hard to find good help, and really hard to keep good help with very limited resources.
This is based of an old friend of mine who's been in that business for decades, and until just recently managed at a Jack In The Box.
The problems are: the farmers use more potent fertilizers and higher densities than what is natural.
Is this the farmer's fault? They could grow food with weaker fertilizers, but I don't think society is willing to bear the cost. They'd rather use potent fertilizers and damage parts of the environment they don't care much about, or that doesn't directly affect them.
But that's okay. We are doing things FAR worse than damage caused by farming. We have limited resources. It's better to deal with things like dirty energy generation first, then come back to farming issues. It's the same idea of paying off your high interest debt first. It's way cheaper in the long run.
I am okay with giving up milk, but not dairy. I really love cheeses. I actually prefer soymilk to cow's milk... but I don't think I could live without cheese.
Though cows MUST be milked. It would be inhumane to NOT milk cows who were lactating.
If new services spring up from higher bandwidth, there will be exchanges of money. That money will be taxed. It will stimulate the economy. None of this is happening in a black box. You should be thinking about this as an investment by the governement, on which is will see a RoI greater than 1.
Government spending isn't always a loss that comes out of taxpayer pockets. If someone has a RoI over 1, then by gods, let's do it. Especially if it is going to benefit people in other ways, too.
Interestingly enough, the HTC Touch Pro was designed by HTC to have a 3.1 MP rear-facing camera, and a VGA forward-facing camera, for obvious reasons.
However when Sprint decided to carry the phone, then had HTC remove the forward facing camera. I can only guess why, but it proved it wasn't an oversight, but a design requirement. Perhaps something similar happened over at Apple or AT&T.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked my about:crashes, but I use the Windows version. Here is my list:
6450ff86-fdd8-4787-ab99-86ce72090128 1/28/2009 10:36 PM
7e8f3b82-550e-4089-a1de-904762090128 1/28/2009 10:35 PM
2d37ca19-c47c-480e-895a-293382081124 11/24/2008 6:18 PM
107a39c0-4d27-11dd-b692-0013211cbf8a 7/8/2008 2:49 PM
91e1b054-365e-11dd-a112-001cc4e2bf68 6/9/2008 2:59 PM
1b90a0b5-31c9-11dd-b6cf-001cc45a2c28 6/3/2008 6:59 PM
5e93df19-279a-11dd-8633-001cc45a2ce4 5/21/2008 7:59 PM
6560e900-1b06-11dd-8183-001321b13766 5/5/2008 7:46 PM
26521f68-1656-11dd-a333-001321b13766 4/29/2008 8:34 PM
31e14a35-1631-11dd-93e0-001cc45a2ce4 4/29/2008 4:10 PM
3c9bed91-10c4-11dd-828b-001a4bd46e84 4/22/2008 6:27 PM
7fcc0c17-1007-11dd-93e9-001cc4e2bf68 4/21/2008 7:56 PM
3f7a42ab-1001-11dd-babf-0013211cbf8a 4/21/2008 7:11 PM
b0052e42-073d-11dd-b028-001cc45a2ce4 4/10/2008 3:31 PM
fd278cb3-0736-11dd-8304-001321b13766 4/10/2008 2:43 PM
d21bb4ab-0734-11dd-ba39-001b78bc73ea 4/10/2008 2:28 PM
44e8e514-04e6-11dd-8f41-001cc45a2ce4 4/7/2008 4:01 PM
b4ae8ab5-04d2-11dd-a0fc-001321b13766 4/7/2008 1:40 PM
95339221-028f-11dd-949c-001cc45a2c28 4/4/2008 4:35 PM
220c28e3-ff5a-11dc-a75a-001a4bd43e5c 3/31/2008 2:35 PM
177f6023-fb65-11dc-994c-001a4bd43e5c 3/26/2008 1:43 PM
ba386314-faa3-11dc-a0de-001a4bd43e5c 3/25/2008 2:39 PM
Though in fairness, they're probably ALL flash crashes. Perhaps the GP is experiencing the same thing. Or trolling? If he has pasted his logs in here, we'd know for sure.
Yes, please!
How can firefox be taken seriously if you can't push it to 1000 machines in a network and manage all its settings from an administrative console.
Have you stopped to consider how much of IE's "marketshare" is happening on the countless workstations at various companies?
Has it affected my memory? Can't remember.
I would actually credit Microsoft for that, not Firefox. If IE didn't suck so bad, I doubt people would be flocking to Firefox. I mean, Firefox is not some messiah of a browser. It's okay, and I use it everyday. But it still has its issues.
IE is losing popularity because Microsoft sat on their hands for so long with IE6, which, frankly, sucked. Firefox could have never competed if MS had began development of IE7 just after they released 6. We'd probably be on IE 9 oe 10 by now. And honestly, if they could maintain the same levels of improvement with each release, I really think IE 10 would be better than Firefox 3.
In a way, Microsoft is its own worst enemy. Don't get me wrong, I really like Firefox. But I feel like it's coming into the market was more opportunistic than competitive. With IE7 out, and 8 almost out, that's not necessarily true anymore. But the image of IE = suck and FF = 1337 is already out there, and it's going to continue to exist even if (or when) IE becomes a worthwhile pile of bits.
I think this is called the Doctrine of First Sale.
For example:
I buy a copy of a book.
I cross out some passages, and write some new text into the margins. I then rebind the book into a different cover.
Am I legally allowed to resale the book?
How does this differ from reselling a copy of software, with modifications.
If I were to just sell OSX straight out to people, then that's piracy. But if I buy a copy of it first, I can then resell that copy that I have purchased.
Or another comparison -- a car analogy -- is the think of the sale of limousines. You take the original car, modify it, then resell it.
Of course, there are ways around even what you suggest. For example, when you buy a Psystar, you are actually billed for a full copy of OSX and some hardware, then billed for labor for hiring a technician as Psystar to install it for you, including any hacks to make it run.
The bottom line is: the only argument Apple really has is that it's illegal for Psystar to modify OSX. Being able to resell OSX -- in any condition -- is legal, and I don't think anyone is going to challenge that.
Vendor Buy Bank Guards!
Yeah, but if you have the wrong OS, chances are you're not going to have the problem mentioned in the KB. KBs that affect multiple versions of Windows probably have all the fixes in a single MSI, and the installer logic picks which one to install.
That's what she said.
Or by some reckoning, you have a 40Kbps connection burstable to 15Mpbs.
It's really not that hard to run XP (or 2000, or 98 or DOS) in a virtual machine. Microsoft even already has that technology. They just need to integrate it seamlessly into the OS.
You can't get more "backwards compatible" than virtualizing the old version of the OS. If you did that, it would run EXACTLY as it did.
Or you could just do what we do here. We have some old software and hardware that worked on Windows 95. So we keep a couple boxes running with Windows 95. Problem solved. It's ONLY used for that using a piece of hardware, so it's really not an issue as far as management goes. They aren't even hooked up to the network.
This is NOT true by and large anymore. Microsoft came out with Microsoft Installer a long time ago. When you run an "MSI" file, you are actually running msiexec, which is a package manager for Windows.
Many apps wrap the MSI in an executable that first checks to see if Microsoft Installer is installed, because in older systems, it didn't come by default. But still, it's often just as easy to run the MSI, or to download the MSI.
In the past, what you said was true. And a lot of software still uses the old way of installing. But most have moved to MSI based installs. Even on linux, not every piece of software gets installed from a package of that distro's flavor (rpm, deb, etc.). Some apps still get installed "manually".
What MSI doesn't have that most linux package managers have is an interface to a repository of softwares you can download and install with one command. That's because most software for Windows is proprietary, and not freely available to distributable.
However someone COULD create such a repository and an front-end for it.
It's also not as "friendly" as the linux managers, because it's meant to work quietly behind the scenes. But it's really not that hard to work with, there just isn't a set of tools (beyond the command line) to work with it out of the box.
Have you installed OpenOffice lately? It's a beast, too. But I digress.
Office itself it designed as almost an application framework that gets installed or "added on" to the OS. The apps that sit on top of it (Word, Excel, etc.) are merely front-ends to that framework.
Consider these possibilities:
1)Installs drivers, system extensions, or shared libraries to the SYSTEM directories.
2)Installs common executable code to a common PROGRAM FILES directory.
3)Saves user-specific data to the USER'S REGISTRY.
4)Saves common data to the SYSTEM REGISTRY.
5)Saves data to the USER'S HOME DIRECTORY.
All right, so #1, #2, and #4 require admin rights. This SHOULD only happen ONE time, when you're installing software. Everything else can happen with normal user privs.
However, here is where it gets sticky:
6)Saves data to PROGRAM FILES directory.
I have seen a lot of applications do #6. I would say #6 is probably 90% of the problems people have with running as a normal user. And I can say without a doubt that every case of #6 is because developers didn't writer their software correctly for Windows.
Microsoft tried to fix this problem, and they came up with a very clever and well-implemented way of doing so in Vista, even if it is complicated.
What do they do? They create a "virtual" program files directory in the user's home folder, where the user has full permission. So if I am the admin, and I install a piece of software to PROGRAM FILES, and user 1 runs it and it tries to save some data to PROGRAM FILES, it will actually write the data in the user's "virtual" program files directory in his home.
User 2 logs in and doesn't see any of user 1's data. Admin and log in and not see any of user 2's data. Admin CAN go into user 1's home directory and find the data, but it's NOT stored in program files.
There are some quirks, but for the most part, it works well. Of course, the virtual program files only works with UAC on.
I actually used it effectively to create a login on my PC for a friend, so he would play WoW. He could login and change his settings, Addons, or whatever, and all the changed files got put in his virtual program files directory. None of my settings were affected.
Even though WoW is a huge culprit of #6, it's not a problem in Vista.
However he still couldn't install AIM. I'm not sure why, I didn't test it. Not that I cared, I didn't really want AIM on there anyway. Probably because AIM needed admin rights to install common registry settings.
As the GP said, this is mostly because of lazy software developers that didn't write the software to INSTALL as admin, but RUN as user. Of course, this is changing, and most new software plays nice. But it's amazing how much software out there doesn't.
This is true of XP. However Microsoft realized people wanted a reference calender, and so they changed it in Vista so that it would also function as a reference calender.
As a Windows admin, I greatly prefer XP to 2000. Just being able to remote desktop in for administrative stuff is worth the upgrade.
Wake on LAN plus remote desktop is invaluable to me.
There are some other useful things, but that's the one that I like the most.
XP Home was meant to be an upgrade to Windows ME. Remember ME? I try not to, but do for just a second.
Then start nodding your head in realization that is was WAY WAY better.
You say not with today's technology, but that's exactly what TFA is talking about. The GP does have a valid point: if it's more profitable to sell HAART than something more effective, why would they sell the something better?
Or they'll do what a lot of other industries do and have lots of things "in the works", but release them on a slow schedule, so as to milk maximum profits out of their investments.
What?! They told me I was the first person the offered the job to!
You haven't been paying attention. Managers in places like that make fair money, and they are often paid in relatively large bonuses based on particular metrics for that company. Things like food cost, speed of service, customer satisfactions surveys, and surprise anonymous audits are common.
If a manager can come into a faltering store, double its profits and make customers happy, that manager is going to be making pretty good money. Managers can't do that without good employees. And in that industry, you can't even bait in good employees with better pay. The difference between a new hire and the "assitant manager" or "shift leader" might be a couple dollars and hour, max.
So fast food managers have to work really hard to find good help, and really hard to keep good help with very limited resources.
This is based of an old friend of mine who's been in that business for decades, and until just recently managed at a Jack In The Box.
So what if you have a lot of like, but not a lot of respect? That's the position I'm in.
Maybe I should become a CEO.
Or run for congress.
The problems are: the farmers use more potent fertilizers and higher densities than what is natural.
Is this the farmer's fault? They could grow food with weaker fertilizers, but I don't think society is willing to bear the cost. They'd rather use potent fertilizers and damage parts of the environment they don't care much about, or that doesn't directly affect them.
But that's okay. We are doing things FAR worse than damage caused by farming. We have limited resources. It's better to deal with things like dirty energy generation first, then come back to farming issues. It's the same idea of paying off your high interest debt first. It's way cheaper in the long run.
If my meat exercises, does it mean I don't have to?
(Yes, I am an American.)
I am okay with giving up milk, but not dairy. I really love cheeses. I actually prefer soymilk to cow's milk... but I don't think I could live without cheese.
Though cows MUST be milked. It would be inhumane to NOT milk cows who were lactating.
If new services spring up from higher bandwidth, there will be exchanges of money. That money will be taxed. It will stimulate the economy. None of this is happening in a black box. You should be thinking about this as an investment by the governement, on which is will see a RoI greater than 1.
Government spending isn't always a loss that comes out of taxpayer pockets. If someone has a RoI over 1, then by gods, let's do it. Especially if it is going to benefit people in other ways, too.
Interestingly enough, the HTC Touch Pro was designed by HTC to have a 3.1 MP rear-facing camera, and a VGA forward-facing camera, for obvious reasons.
However when Sprint decided to carry the phone, then had HTC remove the forward facing camera. I can only guess why, but it proved it wasn't an oversight, but a design requirement. Perhaps something similar happened over at Apple or AT&T.