OOo creates documents, spreadsheets, presentations and drawings. None of which are up there in terms of quality with what I can create using Office 2007.
It does so efficiently once you're familiar with it, often more efficiently than it's major competitors. But then, pretty much anything is efficient when you're used to it. It takes extremely bad programming to end up with a system that you can't get used to, and Microsoft has the money to pump into usability studies to make sure that Office doesn't end up that way.
In spite of all this you're complaining, behaving like it whipped your dog. Why's that? I didn't get that impression - I got the image of someone trying to promote a free software product, and then being told that instead of improvements to the existing lineup they're going to throw in a pre-existing mail client and pretend that it's even in the same league as Exchange. To me that sounds pretty frustrating.
If people don't have a choice of system, then they are more likely to complain because what other option is there? If there is a choice, then people are more likely to, instead of whinging about it, up sticks and change system without bothering to say anything.
No, sorry, your assessment of the situation doesn't scan with me at all.
Yawn, more bullcrap. Also, I'm not a fanboy, I just know more about Windows than you, and it pains me to see someone write so much about something they know so little about.
Wow, presented with a tremendous list of complaints from government officials, industry executives, wintel rag editors, and ordinary people, you conclude that no one is complaining. Denial. You're the one who said that nobody was complaining, not me - hence why I quoted you. Keep up.
My comment about owning your digital word comes from watching one of them try to load up her camera software. Vista did not let it work, but the built in photo manager worked. So much for user choice and the myth that hardware with the little flag "just works". That's funny, because photographs aren't subject to any DRM restriction, so you're either lying (again) or you haven't got the faintest idea how to troubleshoot Windows software, which seeing as you haven't used Windows for 7 years or so doesn't surprise me.
Despite M$'s hype about multitouch surfaces, the table fails because it reads your palm as input while you try to use a stylus. Brilliant interface! Multitouch has to be hardware and software supported. Microsoft are hyping multitouch because they've created hardware that can do it, and plainly your tablet isn't capable of it. If you can get multitouch working on that tablet in Linux, then I will send you a blank cheque in your name (Willy Hill, isn't it?).
Neither of these people complained because all they want is text editing, light math, email and web browsing. But I thought everyone was complaining? No matter - so what you're saying is that all these people want is simple things, and they're not complaining, so I imagine that Vista is actually performing those tasks fine. I'm fairly struggling to see your point.
As usual, you pick one point of mine to argue with and then ignore the rest, then absolutely fail to provide compelling evidence to argue the one point that you picked out. Good job.
Mock surprise! Really, do you live under a rock? People don't complain because they don't know they have easy alternatives that work. With the lack of any other evidence (save your repeatedly debunked and mostly irrelevant 'list'), Occam's Razor would suggest that people don't complain because there's nothing to complain about.
Vista has been out for nearly a year and the consensus opinion on Slashdot, a Linux-centric news site, is that it sucks in all the usual M$ ways and then some. Fixed that for you, just so you realise that you're not actually taking a representative sample of the populace.
You don't have to take my word for it because twitter made a nice log of other people's opinions. Have you honestly not given up pretending that you're the same person? You've been exposed about 5-6 times now, by various people.
The M$ PR people really hate it, so you will probably be put on the terrorist no fly list for just looking at it Paranoid FUD or rhetoric? It's difficult to tell with you sometimes.
Why aren't Firefox, mIRC, Adobe Acrobat, Outlook Express, Outlook 2000 and others vulnerable when they're installed on Linux? On Windows without IE7? On a Mac? Why didn't the vulnerability exist until IE7 was installed? Well, if you didn't have a computer, then it wouldn't be a problem at all, so I guess it's Charles Babbage's fault. Then again, if he wasn't born, it still wouldn't have happened, so it's his parents fault. I guess also if the Earth didn't exist, then it's the fault of either your chosen deity or science, depending.
Just because a problem can't exist without something else, it doesn't mean it's their fault. Here we go, car analogy - someone smashes into the side of your car and injures you. Once out of hospital, you go to the garage and get the sides reinforced so that a future impact there can't hurt you. Just because you've taken the time to fix the possibility of someone injuring you, does it mean it's any less someone else's fault that they smashed into you? No. The "OMG M$ IS FIXING IT SO THEY'RE ADMITTING FAULT" argument is completely spurious.
Anyone confused with the issue needs to read the MSRC blog. There are two issues here.
Fault 1: Programs are receiving malformed URIs and instead of handling them, throwing up strings that they then send to ShellExecute(). Microsoft can't block these because there are other programs that use those handlers legitimately.
Fault 2: This is the result of the difference you're seeing. IE7 and Vista have URI verification in place to stop this kind of attack happening, XP and earlier do not. IE7 checks the handler - however the presence of the % sign means that IE7 tries to fix it, fails, then passes it onto ShellExecute() to fix. On Vista, it's rejected, but on XP the handler isn't as good - so malformed handlers occasionally slip through the net.
The second fault is what they're fixing, not the vulnerability in Firefox. If the tightening of the handlers for IE7 and XP/2003 does fix the 3rd party handler problem, great, but that doesn't make it Microsoft's fault.
In a final note I know it's tough when people don't agree with you, but it's sad to assume that they don't agree with you because they're being paid to do it. You're just not that important.
I think the best line in this incredible theatrical performance of a comment is this one:
Cram your 250lb knee into her 105lb back Do you actually know how much people weigh?
The rest of what you said is complete conjecture. To question the fully witnessed and independently verified version of events outside the cell, then to transfer that level of paranoia to events that weren't witness seems to be a waste of time and completely counter-productive.
It can't be that hard to wait for the autopsy before you start throwing incredibly theories like "The police are incompetent assholes who'd murder someone".
Just because has other things that are more incriminating than the book, doesn't mean the book is irrelevant. The only reason the Slashdot article makes a big thing out of having the book is because 'OMG THOUGHTCRIME', despite that not being the case at all - this 'kid' was planning to blow up the British National Party.
Let me turn this into an analogy for you. In America, owning a gun for self-defence is protected by the constitution. Going out and blowing someone's head off is a crime, and now the gun was not intended for self-defense and you lose your constitutional right to own it.
In the same way, owning this book is not a crime, using it as a basis to plot to blow someone up is and once you do that it becomes a murder weapon.
So what, M$ wont read your email, they will just monitor their (P)OS as it reads every file on your hard disk I think something outrageous like that actually requires you to back it up with a source, don't you?
Good job Twitter, you are finally admitting that Linux can be 'owned'. Is this going to stop you from posting your "1 in 4 Windows machines are in a botnet" troll?
the primary problem here is that we have no idea what was asked for. if Valve told Apple "give us DirectX", it's no wonder they were ignored. same problem with your step 3. without know what was asked for, we have no way of knowing whether anything was done. But Gabe, and I do trust him on this, said that the visitors actually agreed to give him what he wanted, and then that never turned up, which is a world of difference from "they disagreed and walked out".
the problem here - and it's one Newell has as well - is that you're inappropriately generalizing from Valve's claims to the overall industry. the fact of the matter is that there's plenty of game shops that do nice fancy stuff on the Mac using whatever APIs they provide. As a proportion of the industry though, it's minimal.
i'm afraid it simply sounds like he doesn't want to admit that they make money-based decisions around their games. Actually, if you read it with that assumption already in place, which I thought was how it was intended - we establish porting games costs money, but that Apple weren't going to try and make it any cheaper for them. In the end, sometimes it's just not worth the outlay. Again, when you're going to code to approximately 3% of the desktop market, and most of those users aren't known to be gamers, you have to make a decision. In that context, it seems relatively straightforward to me.
Are you really suggesting that Apple should just make whatever random changes to their OS that any of those 99 game companies ask for? Changes that will still require someone to port the game to OS X, unless of course Apple abandons OS X and just makes Windows machines? If that was the case, I would agree with you. However, what's happening is:
1) Apple send representatives to games companies asking how they can make porting easier. 2) The games companies give them things they could do to make porting easier. 3) Apple sit on those suggestions for a year and make no changes, then send a new group of people who are oblivious to the original suggestions and ask again. 4) The games companies assume from their conduct and lack of contact that Apple don't give a rat's ass about assisting porting.
Otherwise, and to a certain extent, you're right. The simple fact is that porting costs money, and not enough people use Mac as a gaming machine to make it worthwhile. If you're already sitting on a gajillion-dollar goldmine like the Sims or WoW, it may be worth the effort, but not by much. Apple could, however, be making it cheaper and easier but they won't and I don't claim to know why.
I don't think there is anyone who's used Windoze for more than five years who's not had a desktop fail so badly that it won't boot and everyone knows someone that's happend to. I know someone who has had an install of Linux fail so badly that it wouldn't even bring up a console.
I know someone who has had an install of Linux screw up an entire hard disk full of data.
If you look at the link, it is by someone who has been making ACPI work in Linux. There's no mention of "Microsoft broke this and that", just "'it's long and therefore time-consuming". Also, from that page:
So why is this difficult? In a lot of cases, it's just down to bugs in the drivers. and
The single biggest problem is video hardware. The spec doesn't require the BIOS to reprogram the video hardware at all, and so often it'll come back in an entirely unprogrammed state. This is an issue, since we (in general) have absolutely no idea how to bring a video card up from scratch. This would occur to me to be symptomatic of closed-source drivers in general than anything 'Microsoft sabotaged'.
I tried to get PDFs from that site but ended up going around in circles, and it's not abundantly clear from the page you linked me to where to get them from, other than by "calling".
ACPI is still not sabotaged, and it won't start being sabotaged just because you wish it was.
One day you'll realise that all you have as 'proof' is an email that is not only nearly nine years old but completely at odds to the fully working ACPI implementations on OS X, Windows and Linux. ACPI is an open spec. To sabotage it would be to have every part of that sabotage documented for people to read.
I suggest you go read it and quote the specific parts of it that are Microsoft-only, then copy them up here for everyone else to look at.
The problem here is people assume they don't exist because they're not being shoved down their throats by computer magazine adverts. However, people still forget that Linux is not yet as profitable for these people - you have to provide extra specialist support, there is zero markup on something people percieve as free, and advertising costs a lot of money.
However, 10 seconds of Google searching using the phrase "Laptop no OS installed" brings up that list and the Dell Ideastorm website as the first two links.
Notice that the poster I replied to already listed several companies that provide systems with no OS or with a Linux option. The point of my post was that such a list is completely irrelevant Your point was that the MS Tax used to be relevant so it's still worth arguing about it. Seeing as that hasn't been true for about a decade now, referring to the MS Tax in an article like this is like talking about a woman's right to vote when we talk about voting machines. It's past now - move on.
In the context of the thread as a whole and in particular the tone of the OP, I felt that such a closing line to my post was appropriate. In fact, I actually think this is obvious to anyone who has read all of the posts by the OP in this discussion. Maybe you weren't paying attention. Oh, absolutely. I mean, whenever you argue with someone you think is being childish, the best thing to do is sink directly to their level rather than try and make an intelligent point, which you still haven't managed to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree.
If people don't have a choice of system, then they are more likely to complain because what other option is there? If there is a choice, then people are more likely to, instead of whinging about it, up sticks and change system without bothering to say anything.
No, sorry, your assessment of the situation doesn't scan with me at all.
As usual, you pick one point of mine to argue with and then ignore the rest, then absolutely fail to provide compelling evidence to argue the one point that you picked out. Good job.
God, there's enough slippery slope arguments in the comments here for me to start my own Slip 'n Slide warehouse.
Just because a problem can't exist without something else, it doesn't mean it's their fault. Here we go, car analogy - someone smashes into the side of your car and injures you. Once out of hospital, you go to the garage and get the sides reinforced so that a future impact there can't hurt you. Just because you've taken the time to fix the possibility of someone injuring you, does it mean it's any less someone else's fault that they smashed into you? No. The "OMG M$ IS FIXING IT SO THEY'RE ADMITTING FAULT" argument is completely spurious.
Anyone confused with the issue needs to read the MSRC blog. There are two issues here.
Fault 1: Programs are receiving malformed URIs and instead of handling them, throwing up strings that they then send to ShellExecute(). Microsoft can't block these because there are other programs that use those handlers legitimately.
Fault 2: This is the result of the difference you're seeing. IE7 and Vista have URI verification in place to stop this kind of attack happening, XP and earlier do not. IE7 checks the handler - however the presence of the % sign means that IE7 tries to fix it, fails, then passes it onto ShellExecute() to fix. On Vista, it's rejected, but on XP the handler isn't as good - so malformed handlers occasionally slip through the net.
The second fault is what they're fixing, not the vulnerability in Firefox. If the tightening of the handlers for IE7 and XP/2003 does fix the 3rd party handler problem, great, but that doesn't make it Microsoft's fault.
In a final note I know it's tough when people don't agree with you, but it's sad to assume that they don't agree with you because they're being paid to do it. You're just not that important.
For what seems to be the nine billionth time, no. Copyrights require that they are defended, not patents.
The rest of what you said is complete conjecture. To question the fully witnessed and independently verified version of events outside the cell, then to transfer that level of paranoia to events that weren't witness seems to be a waste of time and completely counter-productive.
It can't be that hard to wait for the autopsy before you start throwing incredibly theories like "The police are incompetent assholes who'd murder someone".
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Just because has other things that are more incriminating than the book, doesn't mean the book is irrelevant. The only reason the Slashdot article makes a big thing out of having the book is because 'OMG THOUGHTCRIME', despite that not being the case at all - this 'kid' was planning to blow up the British National Party.
Let me turn this into an analogy for you. In America, owning a gun for self-defence is protected by the constitution. Going out and blowing someone's head off is a crime, and now the gun was not intended for self-defense and you lose your constitutional right to own it.
In the same way, owning this book is not a crime, using it as a basis to plot to blow someone up is and once you do that it becomes a murder weapon.
Never mind - ignore me, I just re-read your comment and it makes more sense. Point retracted ;)
Good try, but this is a patent, not an implementation.
Ah, wondering when you'd post. Was looking for your input on this article, I'm interested to hear your viewpoint.
Good job Twitter, you are finally admitting that Linux can be 'owned'. Is this going to stop you from posting your "1 in 4 Windows machines are in a botnet" troll?
Wow, that's akin to the Spanish Inquisition? So I assume, historically, it went:
Inquisitor: "ARE YOU, OR ARE YOU NOT, A CATHOLIC!?"
Prisoner: "Yep."
Inquisitor: "Oh, okay. You can go then."
1) Apple send representatives to games companies asking how they can make porting easier.
2) The games companies give them things they could do to make porting easier.
3) Apple sit on those suggestions for a year and make no changes, then send a new group of people who are oblivious to the original suggestions and ask again.
4) The games companies assume from their conduct and lack of contact that Apple don't give a rat's ass about assisting porting.
Otherwise, and to a certain extent, you're right. The simple fact is that porting costs money, and not enough people use Mac as a gaming machine to make it worthwhile. If you're already sitting on a gajillion-dollar goldmine like the Sims or WoW, it may be worth the effort, but not by much. Apple could, however, be making it cheaper and easier but they won't and I don't claim to know why.
Why do you make me keep linking this?
Congratulations on managing to post AC without power.
You need a bit of a rewrite on that troll and then you can give it another try. We'll still be here, promise.
I know someone who has had an install of Linux screw up an entire hard disk full of data.
Oh, wait, both of those people were me.
I tried to get PDFs from that site but ended up going around in circles, and it's not abundantly clear from the page you linked me to where to get them from, other than by "calling".
ACPI is still not sabotaged, and it won't start being sabotaged just because you wish it was.
One day you'll realise that all you have as 'proof' is an email that is not only nearly nine years old but completely at odds to the fully working ACPI implementations on OS X, Windows and Linux. ACPI is an open spec. To sabotage it would be to have every part of that sabotage documented for people to read.
I suggest you go read it and quote the specific parts of it that are Microsoft-only, then copy them up here for everyone else to look at.
Pick one of these, then.
The problem here is people assume they don't exist because they're not being shoved down their throats by computer magazine adverts. However, people still forget that Linux is not yet as profitable for these people - you have to provide extra specialist support, there is zero markup on something people percieve as free, and advertising costs a lot of money.
However, 10 seconds of Google searching using the phrase "Laptop no OS installed" brings up that list and the Dell Ideastorm website as the first two links.