To force your 'analogy' into alignment with what GP actually said, it'd be like expecting the wheels on your kid's training bike to work on your Ducati.
Even Ballmer admitted it's not the release he wanted and that they'd wished they could've got Windows Mobile 7 out the door earlier instead.
Then they should have waited.
Much as it is "wrong to assume what the quality of 7 will be like based on this rather poor release that is 6.5", that's what everyone is going to do. If MS feel they can get away with shipping decidedly crap software now, why would one presume they're going to feel different on the ship date of WM7?
Though, that said, I do use debian. I like waiting for software...
It amazes me how a botnet with 1,000,000 zombies? (don't tell me this was because of linux' low marketshare - linux has around 10% marketshare if you count the servermarket. So if marketshare was the only factor, then there shouldn't be much more than 9 times as many infected windows machines, so windows botnets with more than 6,930 zombies would already be newsworthy either)
It's predictability. Everyone expects Windows hosts to be members of a botnet, lots of people are under the impression Linux is impervious to it.
It's similar to how a roadside bomb in Afghanistan is substantially less newsworthy than one in Britain, despite them being similarly technically possible - the bomb in Afghanistan is expected, the one in the UK isn't.
How long did it take you to become fully comfortable with the 'old' interface? Less than a day?
Seriously, within a few days I'd become fluent in the ribbon on the new Office. It took about an hour for it to become easy to use. Though, admittedly, I started off with the attitude of "lets see if I can get used to this" rather than "this is going to be shit, but I'd better at least give it a go so I can complain with some authority"...
Well, the original point (in that post comparing advertising "Linux" and "Redhat") was that someone looking for 'Linux' might well come across any and all Linux distros, and treat them as that thing advertised on the radio.
If the advert was for a particular distribution, they're more likely to focus on the distribution's name, rather than the kernel's, and so only perceive that particular distro as having whatever benefits they inferred from the radio ad.
So it's less a test of it's drinkability as one of whether it's yet been processed into drinkable water?
I was hoping for something that'd be useful to people in remote places who want to drink out of a river. I know the article mentions spin-offs for bangladesh.
It'd be good for Linux users, as all the devices are sold cheap.
Windows users will still pay the premium (in cost or power) to stick with what they know, unless this netbook is incredibly good. Apple is practically the definition of a polished product, they've fantastic brand awareness, they're commonly held to be superior, and they're still not really knocking Microsoft off their perch. I don't see why this is likely to make linux netbooks any more successful than the x86 ones have been.
There's an implication in there that it makes the wood more uniform, as if it had grown in that mini ice age, but there's no explicit mention, and all I can find at the minute are links to the same story.
Is that what it does, or is it something else to do with the acoustic properties of the wood?
it only does if you want OSS - not always a great option, alas - and if you're content with being stuck with old versions. In short, if you need commercial software then you're still downloading executables (or other packages).
Why is the repository model only suitable for open source software? This is a genuine question, I've always assumed it'd be workable.
No thanks, I am quite capable myself of deciding what I do or don't want to run on my machine. I don't need some stupid organization deciding that the executable is "safe" enough for me to run.
The idea isn't to restrict you to that software. That's certainly not how it's implemented on other platforms. You have somewhere you can go and get 'known safe'[1] applications, if and when you want them. For many users who apparently are not capable of making the distinction, and who would likely rather not have to trawl the internet for tools, this would be quite useful.
Personally, I feel this is a much greater contributor to the 'safety' of Linux than any inherent system design (especially since the user's files are more valuable than the OS's generally). The fact that the user is less likely to feel the need to install malicious software, because they've got somewhere safe to go and get it.
semantics. any university that doesn't offer the link between academic knowledge and practical use is a poor choice.
Yes, they offer a link. But the primary purpose is an academic treatment of the material, not training in a particular job.
Here in the UK, we have 'vocational training' which is basically training in how to do a particular job. Universities, while getting less purely academic, are still nowhere near as specifically job-training as the vocational courses are. Universities still exist basically to research stuff and play with the abstract and theoretical ends of things.
We also have a small problem in that we have vast numbers of graduates leaving university expecting to be able to just walk into a job, and a slightly smaller number of companies bemoaning the fact that all these applicants have degrees but no experience.
Presumably it would have been fine, though, if they'd not done this.
This is how you're encouraging business to not open source. While it's 'normally' licensed, no-one complains. If you only open it a little bit, you become a bad guy. If I was in the business of producing commercial software, it's sentiment like yours that'd put me off.
Basically, management were initially scared off by the original EULA, and last time we had a look at it it appeared that Google were trying to sneak Chrome in through other installs, and this has scared them off Google. I know the initial notice was from a Picasa install that pulled in Chrome.
I'm not close enough to the actual decision to know the exact reason, I just hear the odd half of a phone conversation, and get the notice of the policy changes.
It's less that we don't like Chrome and more that we (as a company) don't trust Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux audio is inconsistent. Some people want a Linux that Just Works. I know I do.
Correlation is not causation.
I can find mention that two properties of this new system are 'simplicity' and 'open source', but no inference that either caused the other.
Open Firmware.
As I understand it, It's the bit that means Windows doesn't run without help.
No it isn't.
To force your 'analogy' into alignment with what GP actually said, it'd be like expecting the wheels on your kid's training bike to work on your Ducati.
But that's still not entirely appropriate.
Then they should have waited.
Much as it is "wrong to assume what the quality of 7 will be like based on this rather poor release that is 6.5", that's what everyone is going to do. If MS feel they can get away with shipping decidedly crap software now, why would one presume they're going to feel different on the ship date of WM7?
Though, that said, I do use debian. I like waiting for software...
I'm ashamed to say that we do. 'We' obviously being those people whose decisions I get to implement.
Fact is that if you've never used anything else, WM is perfectly adequate. And for a lot of people adequacy's just great.
It's no wonder they didn't like it.
But I came here for an argument!
It's predictability. Everyone expects Windows hosts to be members of a botnet, lots of people are under the impression Linux is impervious to it. It's similar to how a roadside bomb in Afghanistan is substantially less newsworthy than one in Britain, despite them being similarly technically possible - the bomb in Afghanistan is expected, the one in the UK isn't.
How long did it take you to become fully comfortable with the 'old' interface? Less than a day?
Seriously, within a few days I'd become fluent in the ribbon on the new Office. It took about an hour for it to become easy to use. Though, admittedly, I started off with the attitude of "lets see if I can get used to this" rather than "this is going to be shit, but I'd better at least give it a go so I can complain with some authority"...
On the contrary, I've found it puts the few tools that I use often in a place easy to reach, and the many tools I hardly use out of the way.
Clearly your mileage varies. I'd like to see a choice between the UIs, but right now I'd choose the ribbon one.
Well, the original point (in that post comparing advertising "Linux" and "Redhat") was that someone looking for 'Linux' might well come across any and all Linux distros, and treat them as that thing advertised on the radio. If the advert was for a particular distribution, they're more likely to focus on the distribution's name, rather than the kernel's, and so only perceive that particular distro as having whatever benefits they inferred from the radio ad.
So it's less a test of it's drinkability as one of whether it's yet been processed into drinkable water?
I was hoping for something that'd be useful to people in remote places who want to drink out of a river. I know the article mentions spin-offs for bangladesh.
Yeah, those used to be commonly available.
It'd be good for Linux users, as all the devices are sold cheap.
Windows users will still pay the premium (in cost or power) to stick with what they know, unless this netbook is incredibly good. Apple is practically the definition of a polished product, they've fantastic brand awareness, they're commonly held to be superior, and they're still not really knocking Microsoft off their perch. I don't see why this is likely to make linux netbooks any more successful than the x86 ones have been.
There's an implication in there that it makes the wood more uniform, as if it had grown in that mini ice age, but there's no explicit mention, and all I can find at the minute are links to the same story.
Is that what it does, or is it something else to do with the acoustic properties of the wood?
Why is the repository model only suitable for open source software? This is a genuine question, I've always assumed it'd be workable.
I've no idea what footnote I was going to put at [1]...
The idea isn't to restrict you to that software. That's certainly not how it's implemented on other platforms. You have somewhere you can go and get 'known safe'[1] applications, if and when you want them. For many users who apparently are not capable of making the distinction, and who would likely rather not have to trawl the internet for tools, this would be quite useful.
Personally, I feel this is a much greater contributor to the 'safety' of Linux than any inherent system design (especially since the user's files are more valuable than the OS's generally). The fact that the user is less likely to feel the need to install malicious software, because they've got somewhere safe to go and get it.
Yes, they offer a link. But the primary purpose is an academic treatment of the material, not training in a particular job.
Here in the UK, we have 'vocational training' which is basically training in how to do a particular job. Universities, while getting less purely academic, are still nowhere near as specifically job-training as the vocational courses are. Universities still exist basically to research stuff and play with the abstract and theoretical ends of things.
We also have a small problem in that we have vast numbers of graduates leaving university expecting to be able to just walk into a job, and a slightly smaller number of companies bemoaning the fact that all these applicants have degrees but no experience.
Presumably it would have been fine, though, if they'd not done this.
This is how you're encouraging business to not open source. While it's 'normally' licensed, no-one complains. If you only open it a little bit, you become a bad guy. If I was in the business of producing commercial software, it's sentiment like yours that'd put me off.
Universities provide academic training that is in line with your prospective vocation.
Universities do not teach you how to be an Engineer or an archaeologist, they teach you engineering or archeology.
They teach you the academic side of the above, and then release you into the real world to make it your vocation.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Yes, and in the headline on a site claiming to host 'news for nerds' I'd expect it to not mean naughty people.
Not really, it was the wrong word.
Basically, management were initially scared off by the original EULA, and last time we had a look at it it appeared that Google were trying to sneak Chrome in through other installs, and this has scared them off Google. I know the initial notice was from a Picasa install that pulled in Chrome.
I'm not close enough to the actual decision to know the exact reason, I just hear the odd half of a phone conversation, and get the notice of the policy changes.
It's less that we don't like Chrome and more that we (as a company) don't trust Google.