When I plug open-sauce (which, despite my polar-opposite allegiances I still do), I rarely state "free" as a reason to install something.
"Community developed" always goes down much better....latch on "free" as a side-product benefit, but "community developed" makes it sound like "written by the people for the people", so tends to get better reception.
Everything is 'free'; it just depends whether you have to steal it or not.
It's good to see slashdot and some of its followers still haven't weaned themselves off Microsoft propaganda yet. I'd feel annoyed if some people in Microsoft weren't doing similar.
For the record, how many companies do you actually think are going to upgrade every release cycle? Errr, not all of them that's for sure. Does that mean Vista is a failure? On this website it apparently does.
When you see this line take a nose-dive (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=) after a Windows release, or indeed when it becomes difficult to buy a new PC with Windows on, then you can claim its a failure.
For now, Vista runs perfectly fine on million and millions of PCs all around the world and is selling faster that XP did(http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/03/27/vista-selling-faster-than-xp-did), which only achieved 98% market share.
Now can we have enough of the MS propaganda please? You're looking as bad as they are.
Believe it or not, Microsoft does consist of real people too, partly as cyborgs are incredibly difficult to toilet train and I won't even start on the eating habits.
All public communication channels to and from Microsoft (the stuff Slashdot feeds on for instance) represent, well, very little of what's inside.
Browse whenever you want, take whatever software you want home, check your email if you want, everyone's their own local admin, no audits.
However, if you get caught with illegal software, miss a deadline because of blatant time-wasting, then you get fired (for continuous abuse). People work not because of policy, but because they want to do well and enjoy what they're doing.
I happen to also work in one of the biggest names in IT too....not some small company. The policy works very well, as is evident from the company's success and the fact people rarely leave. That and brain-implants, anyhow.
See my reply to myself; I can't understand why you'd want to auto-approve updates, but then again desktop search should probably be listed as a separate product, seeing as Vista Ultimate add-ons are too for example?
The problem here is in fact that the search has come as an update for Windows, rather than a separate product. Looks like the people that are affected are auto-approving updates as they come, which more or less half the reason you'd use WSUS in the first place - to test patch deployments before releasing onto the network at large.
This applies to WSUS only, not the consumer Windows Update as everyone has mistaken it for. WSUS is the corporate, large-network version of managing and deploying product patches & upgrades to Windows machines (even if it's useful networks of any size really).
What I find bizarre is that this system, not Windows Update (which I stress again, is different) has been subjected to a patch that seems to auto-approve itself! Under normal circumstances, each patch has to be approved (if set this way) by a network-admin before it will trickle out to workstations. This is the first time it would appear an update has approved itself.
...when it comes to the corporate desktop. Wake me up when there's native support in Ubuntu desktop + server for something that covers 10% of what Windows Active Directory does. For simple web-browsing, email, basic multimedia, and basic office functionality Ubunutu is right on the money. For big corps, it doesn't even come close.
"APC has passed all this feedback back to Microsoft, which, to its credit, is taking the situation very seriously and has Vista developers working on a solution."
So it's a bug. A shitty bug, but a bug none-the-less, so all you Vista users can all calm down ok? Wait...
....the super-expensive satellite one's, for long-haul at least. Why do we need cellphones too?
I mean, if you can get off the phone for 2 hours for short-haul trip then you have issues, and if you need to make an real urgent call on long-haul, it's possible while anything more than a minimum chat is prohibitively expensive for most. What's wrong with that I ask you?
...time issues being the constraint. Actually, time constraints was another reason I tried Ubuntu as XP/ME would've needed patching to high-heaven etc, and as all that she needed was a internet terminal with some basic multimedia right out of the box without needing to worry about factory-install security, Ubuntu seemed to fit the bill perfectly.
I, for the first time actually got a friend setup on Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago. Normally, being of the Microsoft persuasion, I'd recommend Windows if nothing else for its generally universal familiarity if nothing else (all the other PC's in the house were WinBoxes), but the machine she was given was free and not very good. The Windows installed on it was Win ME that wouldn't get even to the desktop unless in safe mode, so it had to go, but it was not capable of running XP to any degree of sanity (128 mb ram, celeron processor, etc), and indeed there was the licensing issue too.
A perfect opportunity for Ubuntu I thought! Or not, as it turned out.
I downloaded and burnt the latest CD image and installed it. Everything was installed fine, except the network card was not detected, rendering the machine even less useful than the butchered ME installation that was on it before. She only wanted to browse the net and read GMail basically, so without a network connection, the laptop was now as good as a large paper-weight.
Now, this is by no means a flame against Ubuntu at all. Before it turned out Ubuntu was compatible, I was thinking to myself that if there's one area Ubuntu could really grow in is the "too old to run Windows x/y/z" which sets the hardware requirement bar higher & higher with each release.
Despite what Microsoft say, Vista is not suited to all PC's - but arguably, Ubuntu is suited to run on almost anything assuming you don't mind common commercial apps/games aren't going to run for newbies (for obvious reasons).
So, if I had one suggestion for Ubuntu/Linux is please, get it to run on shite hardware! Refurbished machines are overlooked if you ask me as many people really can't be bothered to buy new hardware, and Windows really isn't so suited for them in many cases.
FTA - "How can I be sure that updates are safe to install?
Windows uses Secure Socket Layer (SSL) to encrypt the transfer of system information and updates between your computer and the Windows Update Web site. Each file that you download using Automatic Updates has a digital signature from Microsoft. Digital signatures are designed to ensure the authenticity and integrity of signed files. Automatic Updates will not install files that do not contain the correct digital signature."
If you mean getting stuff to fly around any randomly scribbled path in PowerPoint, then it is there. It's great for adding utterly randomly defined entry paths for everything to spice up those more boring presentations; 10 points extra if you can keep a straight face while doing it while facing the execs.
....but for all your MS patching needs (Windows, Office, etc), use WSUS + appropriate group-policies and delay on deploying patches to production machines until at least a week after release (sites like slashdot never seem to fail to inform when MS has screwed up a patch-batch, so there's your warning source). WSUS is a gem for seeing/testing the state of patch-deployment.
Failing that, just don't run anyone as admin and you won't have an issue anyway. Windows only really needs 100% patches guaranteed when admin rights are the norm.
Anyone who owns an iPod will know the firmware gets updated fairly regularly will fixes and on occasion new features too. To hack your own firmware onto an Apple device is tight-rope-walking at best.
For goodness sake people, you don't buy Apple products because they're cheap or because you want to save money; nay fellow brethren, you buy because Apple products are the coolest, the best user-tested, and yea, because you are blessed enough to afford luxury. It comes at a price.
For the record, I too despise the control, but then like I said if you don't like it, don't use it.
The params thing I'll take your word on. In.net things like that are hardened anyway, which is more my area. Either way, it appears to just be sloppy programming if what you say is true.
Finally, I will correct you, while XP leaves file & print sharing services open by default (note: that doesn't mean you can just walk into any XP box), Vista does not (depending on the type of network you say you're connected to). For public networks, all inbound sharing services are switched off AND the firewall is set to paranoid-mode. It's actually rather clever really, take a look - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0906.mspx
Slashdot Mirror
"I can't imagine this taking more than half an hour to get working."
Jesus. The number of times I've said that and regretted it.
When I plug open-sauce (which, despite my polar-opposite allegiances I still do), I rarely state "free" as a reason to install something.
"Community developed" always goes down much better....latch on "free" as a side-product benefit, but "community developed" makes it sound like "written by the people for the people", so tends to get better reception.
Everything is 'free'; it just depends whether you have to steal it or not.
The guy on the desk just said "Oh, you need to put 'no' for that - I assume you're not a terrorist right?". How we laughed.
Not all immigration staff are idiots, some are quite nice.
It's good to see slashdot and some of its followers still haven't weaned themselves off Microsoft propaganda yet. I'd feel annoyed if some people in Microsoft weren't doing similar.
For the record, how many companies do you actually think are going to upgrade every release cycle?
Errr, not all of them that's for sure. Does that mean Vista is a failure? On this website it apparently does.
When you see this line take a nose-dive (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=) after a Windows release, or indeed when it becomes difficult to buy a new PC with Windows on, then you can claim its a failure.
For now, Vista runs perfectly fine on million and millions of PCs all around the world and is selling faster that XP did(http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/03/27/vista-selling-faster-than-xp-did), which only achieved 98% market share.
Now can we have enough of the MS propaganda please? You're looking as bad as they are.
If you think MS R&D is bland, it's because you're just uninformed.
Take a look at this for instance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECPOXUQB5k0
Believe it or not, Microsoft does consist of real people too, partly as cyborgs are incredibly difficult to toilet train and I won't even start on the eating habits.
All public communication channels to and from Microsoft (the stuff Slashdot feeds on for instance) represent, well, very little of what's inside.
So says this article - http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/02/first-opensocial-application-hacked-within-45-minutes/
...there's a very relaxed IT policy.
Browse whenever you want, take whatever software you want home, check your email if you want, everyone's their own local admin, no audits.
However, if you get caught with illegal software, miss a deadline because of blatant time-wasting, then you get fired (for continuous abuse). People work not because of policy, but because they want to do well and enjoy what they're doing.
I happen to also work in one of the biggest names in IT too....not some small company. The policy works very well, as is evident from the company's success and the fact people rarely leave. That and brain-implants, anyhow.
Vista helped Microsoft, yet again, beat wall-street expectations (the people that are paid to know about these things) - http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/26/microsoft-q1-profits ...and it's sold 88 million copies so far. Not bad for an operating system that "doesn't work".
See my reply to myself; I can't understand why you'd want to auto-approve updates, but then again desktop search should probably be listed as a separate product, seeing as Vista Ultimate add-ons are too for example?
The problem here is in fact that the search has come as an update for Windows, rather than a separate product. Looks like the people that are affected are auto-approving updates as they come, which more or less half the reason you'd use WSUS in the first place - to test patch deployments before releasing onto the network at large.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2315860&SiteID=1
This applies to WSUS only, not the consumer Windows Update as everyone has mistaken it for. WSUS is the corporate, large-network version of managing and deploying product patches & upgrades to Windows machines (even if it's useful networks of any size really).
What I find bizarre is that this system, not Windows Update (which I stress again, is different) has been subjected to a patch that seems to auto-approve itself!
Under normal circumstances, each patch has to be approved (if set this way) by a network-admin before it will trickle out to workstations. This is the first time it would appear an update has approved itself.
...when it comes to the corporate desktop. Wake me up when there's native support in Ubuntu desktop + server for something that covers 10% of what Windows Active Directory does.
For simple web-browsing, email, basic multimedia, and basic office functionality Ubunutu is right on the money. For big corps, it doesn't even come close.
...and it's for true insight like that I love coming to slashdot.
FTA:
"APC has passed all this feedback back to Microsoft, which, to its credit, is taking the situation very seriously and has Vista developers working on a solution."
So it's a bug. A shitty bug, but a bug none-the-less, so all you Vista users can all calm down ok? Wait...
....the super-expensive satellite one's, for long-haul at least. Why do we need cellphones too?
I mean, if you can get off the phone for 2 hours for short-haul trip then you have issues, and if you need to make an real urgent call on long-haul, it's possible while anything more than a minimum chat is prohibitively expensive for most. What's wrong with that I ask you?
...time issues being the constraint. Actually, time constraints was another reason I tried Ubuntu as XP/ME would've needed patching to high-heaven etc, and as all that she needed was a internet terminal with some basic multimedia right out of the box without needing to worry about factory-install security, Ubuntu seemed to fit the bill perfectly.
Next time I'll keep that link in mind.
I, for the first time actually got a friend setup on Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago. Normally, being of the Microsoft persuasion, I'd recommend Windows if nothing else for its generally universal familiarity if nothing else (all the other PC's in the house were WinBoxes), but the machine she was given was free and not very good. The Windows installed on it was Win ME that wouldn't get even to the desktop unless in safe mode, so it had to go, but it was not capable of running XP to any degree of sanity (128 mb ram, celeron processor, etc), and indeed there was the licensing issue too.
A perfect opportunity for Ubuntu I thought! Or not, as it turned out.
I downloaded and burnt the latest CD image and installed it. Everything was installed fine, except the network card was not detected, rendering the machine even less useful than the butchered ME installation that was on it before. She only wanted to browse the net and read GMail basically, so without a network connection, the laptop was now as good as a large paper-weight.
Now, this is by no means a flame against Ubuntu at all. Before it turned out Ubuntu was compatible, I was thinking to myself that if there's one area Ubuntu could really grow in is the "too old to run Windows x/y/z" which sets the hardware requirement bar higher & higher with each release.
Despite what Microsoft say, Vista is not suited to all PC's - but arguably, Ubuntu is suited to run on almost anything assuming you don't mind common commercial apps/games aren't going to run for newbies (for obvious reasons).
So, if I had one suggestion for Ubuntu/Linux is please, get it to run on shite hardware! Refurbished machines are overlooked if you ask me as many people really can't be bothered to buy new hardware, and Windows really isn't so suited for them in many cases.
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/797e56e1-a611-4f36-8bfe-99f8e6af26cf1033.mspx?mfr=true
FTA - "How can I be sure that updates are safe to install?
Windows uses Secure Socket Layer (SSL) to encrypt the transfer of system information and updates between your computer and the Windows Update Web site. Each file that you download using Automatic Updates has a digital signature from Microsoft. Digital signatures are designed to ensure the authenticity and integrity of signed files. Automatic Updates will not install files that do not contain the correct digital signature."
If you mean getting stuff to fly around any randomly scribbled path in PowerPoint, then it is there.
It's great for adding utterly randomly defined entry paths for everything to spice up those more boring presentations; 10 points extra if you can keep a straight face while doing it while facing the execs.
I fail to see the insight. Windows Server isn't so bad as you might like to think - http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/06/138220
It pales into insignificance alongside SHINY GADGETS! :)
....but for all your MS patching needs (Windows, Office, etc), use WSUS + appropriate group-policies and delay on deploying patches to production machines until at least a week after release (sites like slashdot never seem to fail to inform when MS has screwed up a patch-batch, so there's your warning source). WSUS is a gem for seeing/testing the state of patch-deployment.
Failing that, just don't run anyone as admin and you won't have an issue anyway. Windows only really needs 100% patches guaranteed when admin rights are the norm.
Anyone who owns an iPod will know the firmware gets updated fairly regularly will fixes and on occasion new features too. To hack your own firmware onto an Apple device is tight-rope-walking at best.
For goodness sake people, you don't buy Apple products because they're cheap or because you want to save money; nay fellow brethren, you buy because Apple products are the coolest, the best user-tested, and yea, because you are blessed enough to afford luxury. It comes at a price.
Amen.
Firstly, take a look at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_rendering
.net things like that are hardened anyway, which is more my area. Either way, it appears to just be sloppy programming if what you say is true.
For the record, I too despise the control, but then like I said if you don't like it, don't use it.
The params thing I'll take your word on. In
Finally, I will correct you, while XP leaves file & print sharing services open by default (note: that doesn't mean you can just walk into any XP box), Vista does not (depending on the type of network you say you're connected to). For public networks, all inbound sharing services are switched off AND the firewall is set to paranoid-mode. It's actually rather clever really, take a look - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0906.mspx