It's obvious that Jerry doesn't know anything about computers or he wouldn't be asking the question at the end, and if he knew about the utter crap in Vista he'd probably have refused to do the add campaign.
This whole campaign is idiotic and will provide lambs for the slaughter. They more they praise it the more people will poke holes and create even worse public impression.
First, under Vista they store the program in the user's appdata folder when it clearly should be stored in the program files folder. Also, it appears to be too small to be anything more than just a front end to Microsoft's browser engine.
This is a bait and switch routine no matter how you look at it. I won't use the 250gb every month and I certainly won't be happen on those months where I might hit the cap.
The bottom line is that they didn't tell me I'd be capped or interfered with when I ordered their package nearly 5 years ago. I was told it was to be an unlimited service and now it is not, that's fraud.
They have chosen to take the same route as the companies getting big tax breaks. Instead of using that to develop better products they used it to offshore their workers and to pocket the huge profits. Same for this company. Comcast has taken the money and pocketed it instead of making the investment into upgrades that can eliminate this stuff. This is a win-win for them and a loose-loose for us the customer. If they succeed at capping it and then in the next 10 years they implement better bandwidth they won't lower their price, they'll keep it high and charge us more to get the higher bandwidth.
The bottom line is that this is bad management at comcast that is only after lining their pockets instead of actually creating a business that others want or that other companies can compete with.
Though you may be able to install it on computers that do not pass the WGA test it will likely set up some mechanism to monitor your computer. There's no trust in Microsoft whatsoever that we should partake in. We are best advised to use Firefox or some other browser. Even if the WGA aspect doesn't prove true, which I'm sure it will, we don't need another version of their browser that is just as insecure as the one prior.
Friends don't help friends lock themselves into Microsoft products/platforms.
Is never happening ever for the average person and thus makes it just a novelty item. Their design is excessive and cumbersome, not to mention has excessive weaknesses such as cost to maintain, cost to purchase, time to maintain, etc.
It was tough to decipher their speech as well. Word use and pronunciation were a bit distracting. It's tough when your target audience are distracted by your speech instead of focused on your product.
Thank goodness we'll be able to do that. I love ensuring that people get solid product with good ideas instead of info from who has the most money to spend on their advertising.
And as far as anyone can rate a system the system can also be designed to watch for those people abusing the ratings. Also, over time the system will balance that out.
ATI's drivers have always been bad. Way back to the days of the EGA Wonder cards their drivers were pathetic. To date, even with numerous rewrites their drivers have shown significant issues that affect and piss off everyone I know that has used them. I won't buy ATI hardware because of this, even though I know ATI hardware is considered more powerful. I won't use more powerful hardware if the drivers suck.
And, BTW, KDE has nothing to do with this. KDE 4.x is not ready for anyone's use, IMHO, not even the developers.
All problems stem from one company. Microsoft. Microsoft has been the reason that Vista's adoption is 1/2 what it was and it is the reason we have that much of an adoption as it is. What do I mean?
Microsoft is forcing vendors to sell Vista instead of XP. Microsoft is also forcing hardware vendors to implement BIOS hacks to keep transitions from Vista to XP. This is evidenced by many factors, such as the lack of available XP drivers for these new pre-fab pre-installed Vista boxes.
Keep in mind that this is not the case with custom built. Custom built machines can take XP or Vista, or any other.
I remember back a while ago about the Foxconn debacle. I think there's something similar going on here. When you attempt to install XP on various hardware that came pre-installed with Vista you can get the OS installed. But if you attempt to install drivers for those components, if you can find them, there is an almost complete failure to get these components to function.
This is not the case with all manufacturers. It is the case with Gateway and with Toshiba. Both of these manufacturers are forcing Vista installs. It may be with a few chipset packages such as the Intel GM/GL 965. But it is happening.
After a successful install of XP (after verifying that the components work under Vista) and then attempt to install say the wireless, wired, sound, SMBUS drivers, you'll get messages from the installers informing you that the devices aren't present.
You can confirm that this is a BIOS level function due to the fact that if you take a component from a machine that came pre-installed with XP and put it into the new machine where you have removed Vista and installed XP, that component's driver installer will also tell you that the device is not present, even though it was properly installed in another machine.
This clearly is an attempt by Microsoft to mandate to the manufacturers that they are not to support XP any longer even if the customer has chosen to do this on their own.
We did not have this situation when going from Win2k to XP nor from Win98 to XP. It appears to be an issue specifically with going from Vista to XP. It appears to be a bios level hack which creates the situation.
Contact with others has confirmed the situation. Many have reported that this is occuring and the consensus is that it is a mandate by Microsoft to prevent users from running XP on these older machines.
As I said, it isn't all machines. It is a new tactic being implemented on newer hardware in an attempt to force us to stay with Vista.
One has to ask why this is the case. Why on earth is Microsoft so hell bent on forcing us to Vista? Is it some hidden back door? Why would Microsoft care which OS we run given that we have paid them for Vista and paid a second time for XP? What is their motive for mandating this type of issue? Why would they dictate that the sales support for XP has been dropped so quickly?
It is easy to fight an idea when your target audience isn't quite sure about what it is. You simply obfuscate the idea and then substitute your own definition of it. Essentially, you take ownership of it.
Those paying would probably wind up in jail as Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and being a monopolist they can't do things that a non-monopolist could do.
I'd say people would wind up in jail for paying others to not develop for the competitor, if it ever could be proven.
To have isn't enough. It must also have the mind share. You must think Windows for it to have the power it has.
Linux allows others to think alternatively. Linux is now successful in acquiring the mind share of 30,000,000 people world-wide. Today that number could be even higher.
Using Windows to play games isn't gaining mind share. Add complexity to the OS, make it hard so that you don't want to learn another and get people involved at an early age and you have your next generation of mind share even if it somewhat cancerous.
The Extend portion is an attempt to get you to accept their definition of what Open Source is. When businesses accept their definition they'll accept fewer and fewer products created with any other definition. They'll have effectively obfuscated what Open Source is thus enabling them to control it's future.
One of the main tenants of their business tactics against any type of competitor. This is a proven tactic that they have used year after year on company after company.
There is no place for Microsoft in the open source movement. This is an attempt by them to grasp a hold of the concept in an effort to redefine it and eliminate it. This is something none of us should want.
Open source is changing the way the software world works. It is having tremendous positive effects with little to no detrimental effect.
A couple years ago Microsoft declared open source dead. Shortly after that they had a representative publicly state that by 2008 Microsoft's long term strategies would kill open source. Shortly after that Microsoft began it's accusations that Open Source violates 235 of their patents. Within a year they claimed to have their own open source initiative and tried to get college students among others involved. In short order they then declared their attempts to embrace Linux distros willing to enter into IP sharing agreements with them. Now they invade all things Open Source.
Their goal? To get you to think that Open Source is what it is due to them and by virtue of their definition.
Today is the day when everyone should understand that embrace, extend, extinguish is a real tactic used ceaselessly by them.
They never gave into Open Source, they never adopted the goals or follow the definition of Open Source.
Open Source was defined many years ago with the hopes of ensuring that it would not be subverted. Those attempts at subversion are happening now, today. Let's be diligent and guard the gates and ensure that we protect that which is the future of all software.
I thought we'd all learned that supporting Microsoft technologies allows Microsoft to use those technologies against the competition and against the user. Look at what we have today with Windows Vista. It has 47 different programs that collect information about you and report that back to Microsoft. This is not a good thing. It is a violation of your privacy. It is a terrible precedent.
Microsoft uses their techology to trap you into their operating system and thus traps you into buying their future products. Look at Word and the formats used. Those are meant to trap you into their products. Even their ISO efforts demonstrate their less than honest intentions in regards to standards. For example they are using their format to manipulate the ISO into adopting other formats for video, etc that were already denied ISO standardization.
Particularly this has to do with Moonlight. I personally remove silverlight from everyone's computer that comes into my store. I have also found that Microsoft is now installing their web search facilities onto people's computers without their knowledge of what it is and why it is being installed. Microsoft is using their monopoly to create a new monopoly in another market.
They are using silverlight to do the same thing. Not only that, if you remove silverlight, then tell silverlight not to ever be installed again, apply a few other critical patches and the silverlight prohibition reference is delete and you are prompted again to install it.
We do not, absolutely do not, want to pursue any Microsoft technology. It is in the best interests of the future of computing and the internet to not adopt Microsoft's technologies.
Closed proprietary operating systems should be a part of our past by now. We've learned how it has been used to prop up a monopolist. We've learned about the activities that were ultimately deemed criminal by our own court system (not just the federal but in many States as well) and others in other countries. We've learned how they use the OS to prop up other technologies and to create monopolies in those areas as well.
We would be so much better off to have learned our lesson and learn not to support Microsoft's technologies nor their products. I'm being serious. I'm stating the obvious. We should not be taken so easily by new products from Microsoft. Most of those were taken from others. Microsoft is able to deliver them because of their cash on hand. But in reality where did that cash come from? It came from funds collected during their criminal monopolistic activities.
As bad as all this sounds we should have learned. Haven't we learned?
What Google is saying is that they have no responsibility to protect anyone's privacy.
Of course there's privacy and of course there's an expectation of privacy, especially behind the doors of one's home.
Microsoft has essentially said that they would not honor anyone's privacy until the courts told them how much privacy they should protect. Google is doing the same thing here. Google is just saying that we can't protect your privacy so there is no privacy and so you should expect no privacy. They are saying that they have no intention of protecting anyone's privacy until the courts tell them that we actually do have privacy.
The courts do recognize privacy. The police authority also have to respect our privacy. Google's argument will fall on deaf ears. The jury will never accept ruling in favor of Google on this matter because they'll be saying that no one has any privacy. Would you want to be on the jury where you tell the people of the USA that they have no privacy?
This is a lame argument on Google's part.
Aside from that the merit of the case at hand is very dim. I don't see how they could win. Your garbage is private until you put it on the curb. Then it is free game. Your home is private inside yet not on the outside because it is in full view of everyone. Does that give Google the right to spread the view further? As much as it does to allow soemone to take a photo of your home or have a photo with your home in it. It is a far stretch. The plaintiff is hoping for a settlement. Google is hoping for summary judgement. Those inbetween (us) could loose something precious if Google wins. If the plaintiff wins we all could just end up being sued right and left for privacy violations because we take a photo of something, even if it doesn't make it into the public.
Google should not be posturing this position. Soon it will only be the rich that have privacy and all we have is our unspoken thoughts.
This is not an area where profit shouldn't be coming into play. Google should know better.
Honestly they can't think anything remotely like that will happen. People would drop them for the alternative in a heartbeat.
There are already too many negative things about comcast that would have people switch like crazy. Not to mention the government would probably enter the picture and force them into net neutrality.
Also, far too many legit services are handled via P2P.
This will leave a lot of rom for other companies to come in and fill the gaps. DSL will surge, alternative cable services, etc.
If they drop the customer's cable the customer will drop the TV and phone.
No one said AT&T was a smart company. They absolutely have never demonstrated that.
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Don't even have to use profanity. Essentially you could say that "proprietard" is the equivalent of the expression of profanity you make.
Re:This is why Shuttleworth is dead wrong
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
I myself hate to be quoted because often doing so takes sentences and phrases out of context. Overall you have to read the meaning of what's being said and address that instead of nitpicking someone's inability to precisely elaborate what they mean. So, I won't do it to you.
Over the past decade you are correct, many of these issues existed, and some still exist. By far, the issues were addressed in the past couple years and most of the problems you speak about affect all the operating systems.
As a small business owner where I accept customer machines for repairs I can say that I have experienced all of the above issues in both the Windows arena and the Macintosh. In may ways, I experience them and a great number of additional problems,problems that make those above look quite minor.
As a person that can rightly compare my experiences in all three operating systems I have to say that my Linux boxes are better for desktop use, in general, for everyone, not just for the two extreme ends of the spectrum.
When I first looked at Linux it was a stable kernel with various tools used to maintain. Getting a GUI to work was very difficult. Today though getting your GUI to work and to make it act consistently is as easy as clicking the install icon.
What I noticed the other day though was that when I was looking at certain folders in gnome I noticed some had lists and some had icons. What I found was that when I looked at Windows I saw the same thing. I saw the same on the Macintosh I own. What I decided was that the apparent inconsistency had everything to do with me and nothing to do with gnome. I had been changing these and exiting the folders and when I came back they were as I had left them, and that made a somewhat inconsistent look, at least to anyone who doesn't really use the computer.
The issues you were having with drivers is really an issue with one design issue is one I take question with. The proprietary drivers require essentially that you build a kernel loadable module that is specific to the "kernel" release. When a new kernel is released you have to rebuild the kernel loadable module. That means that some drivers may appear to stop working, and in reality they can. Those drivers already found in the kernel are unaffected unless the entity that compiled the kernel did so and excluded certain pieces of hardware.
Now as I said I do take issue with this. And I have seen more than my share of unhappiness about it, but I have also learned to be careful about which updates I install, as all updates are optional. I agree that the average person wouldn't know which ones to avoid and this makes it doubly hard. In most cases, if you turn off the feature that flags you for updates the user will never know and their computer will continue to roll along, albeit sometimes wtihout the updates one might feel are necessary. Overall, tho I think the issue with updating the kernel when proprietary drivers are involved needs work and there should be some warning that doing this could cause problems.
As far as the video settings goes that's actually the issue with the drivers that you spoke about later. I say that because you appear to have 3-4 entries when all three are the same cause, though they may manifest themselves differently.
Networking really, for me and for everyone I have set linux up on has become a non issue, unless it is a wireless thing. Yes, wireless is sort of in the dead zone and significant work needs to be done. I honestly feel that it is tough for the developers and they tend to beg out when it gets tough. We don't see them put in the effort necessary to solve this.
Much of what you are telling us is really related to the hardware manufacturers not providing drivers or not providing proper specificications so that they can be created. I also think the hardware manufacturers are gun shy due to Microsoft hostilities toward the open source community when they issued threats of lawsuits about 235 alleged patent violations. Those were
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
At my shop I'm tasked to remove Vista and replace it with XP on more machines than I see with Vista come in for other issues. Those vista issues I do see are nasty and show how haphazardly the OS was implemented.
I have also been tasked more in the past few months to put linux on machines even for elderly people. People in their late 60s to early 80s want me to put Linux on their computers. And, when done I rarely hear back from them. Those that do visit me say that Linux is working well for them and that aside from the normal learning curve and some glitches Linux appears to do all that they want.
As far as the glitches go Linux is no more glitch prone than XP or Vista. At least with Linux you are guaranteed your privacy and you are significantly more secure. No one in the open source community will get away with trying to install 47 programs onto your computer that monitor what you do and report it back to Microsoft. No one will put a tool in there that forces you to activate your product and regularly report back to them (as Microsoft does) about your continued use.
Under linux you don't pay for software, software that is by all intents and purposes as competent as their commercial counter parts.
I'm happy to be the one that demonstrates a solid and attractive desktop linux to the customers that come into my store and that look at it and want it.
Two people yesterday alone looked at my desktop and thought it was beautiful and when I showed them some of the features they felt it was fancy.
What does this mean? It means that the linux is getting to the average person who can see that it is running your computer and doing things your way (without the worry of viruses, malware, and Microsoft) that's important .
Everyday Linux makes programs in most arenas. My hat goes off to those that work hard to make it possible.
Slashdot Mirror
It's obvious that Jerry doesn't know anything about computers or he wouldn't be asking the question at the end, and if he knew about the utter crap in Vista he'd probably have refused to do the add campaign.
This whole campaign is idiotic and will provide lambs for the slaughter. They more they praise it the more people will poke holes and create even worse public impression.
First, under Vista they store the program in the user's appdata folder when it clearly should be stored in the program files folder. Also, it appears to be too small to be anything more than just a front end to Microsoft's browser engine.
This is a bait and switch routine no matter how you look at it. I won't use the 250gb every month and I certainly won't be happen on those months where I might hit the cap.
The bottom line is that they didn't tell me I'd be capped or interfered with when I ordered their package nearly 5 years ago. I was told it was to be an unlimited service and now it is not, that's fraud.
They have chosen to take the same route as the companies getting big tax breaks. Instead of using that to develop better products they used it to offshore their workers and to pocket the huge profits. Same for this company. Comcast has taken the money and pocketed it instead of making the investment into upgrades that can eliminate this stuff. This is a win-win for them and a loose-loose for us the customer. If they succeed at capping it and then in the next 10 years they implement better bandwidth they won't lower their price, they'll keep it high and charge us more to get the higher bandwidth.
The bottom line is that this is bad management at comcast that is only after lining their pockets instead of actually creating a business that others want or that other companies can compete with.
Though you may be able to install it on computers that do not pass the WGA test it will likely set up some mechanism to monitor your computer. There's no trust in Microsoft whatsoever that we should partake in. We are best advised to use Firefox or some other browser. Even if the WGA aspect doesn't prove true, which I'm sure it will, we don't need another version of their browser that is just as insecure as the one prior.
Friends don't help friends lock themselves into Microsoft products/platforms.
Same to you anonymous coward.
Is never happening ever for the average person and thus makes it just a novelty item. Their design is excessive and cumbersome, not to mention has excessive weaknesses such as cost to maintain, cost to purchase, time to maintain, etc.
It was tough to decipher their speech as well. Word use and pronunciation were a bit distracting. It's tough when your target audience are distracted by your speech instead of focused on your product.
Untrue, the hidden comments are all hidden. Stop trying to advertise for them.
Thank goodness we'll be able to do that. I love ensuring that people get solid product with good ideas instead of info from who has the most money to spend on their advertising.
And as far as anyone can rate a system the system can also be designed to watch for those people abusing the ratings. Also, over time the system will balance that out.
ATI's drivers have always been bad. Way back to the days of the EGA Wonder cards their drivers were pathetic. To date, even with numerous rewrites their drivers have shown significant issues that affect and piss off everyone I know that has used them. I won't buy ATI hardware because of this, even though I know ATI hardware is considered more powerful. I won't use more powerful hardware if the drivers suck.
And, BTW, KDE has nothing to do with this. KDE 4.x is not ready for anyone's use, IMHO, not even the developers.
Yes, Ed Bott is Microsoft's Fox News of the Whitehouse.
All problems stem from one company. Microsoft. Microsoft has been the reason that Vista's adoption is 1/2 what it was and it is the reason we have that much of an adoption as it is. What do I mean?
Microsoft is forcing vendors to sell Vista instead of XP. Microsoft is also forcing hardware vendors to implement BIOS hacks to keep transitions from Vista to XP. This is evidenced by many factors, such as the lack of available XP drivers for these new pre-fab pre-installed Vista boxes.
Keep in mind that this is not the case with custom built. Custom built machines can take XP or Vista, or any other.
I remember back a while ago about the Foxconn debacle. I think there's something similar going on here. When you attempt to install XP on various hardware that came pre-installed with Vista you can get the OS installed. But if you attempt to install drivers for those components, if you can find them, there is an almost complete failure to get these components to function.
This is not the case with all manufacturers. It is the case with Gateway and with Toshiba. Both of these manufacturers are forcing Vista installs. It may be with a few chipset packages such as the Intel GM/GL 965. But it is happening.
After a successful install of XP (after verifying that the components work under Vista) and then attempt to install say the wireless, wired, sound, SMBUS drivers, you'll get messages from the installers informing you that the devices aren't present.
You can confirm that this is a BIOS level function due to the fact that if you take a component from a machine that came pre-installed with XP and put it into the new machine where you have removed Vista and installed XP, that component's driver installer will also tell you that the device is not present, even though it was properly installed in another machine.
This clearly is an attempt by Microsoft to mandate to the manufacturers that they are not to support XP any longer even if the customer has chosen to do this on their own.
We did not have this situation when going from Win2k to XP nor from Win98 to XP. It appears to be an issue specifically with going from Vista to XP. It appears to be a bios level hack which creates the situation.
Contact with others has confirmed the situation. Many have reported that this is occuring and the consensus is that it is a mandate by Microsoft to prevent users from running XP on these older machines.
As I said, it isn't all machines. It is a new tactic being implemented on newer hardware in an attempt to force us to stay with Vista.
One has to ask why this is the case. Why on earth is Microsoft so hell bent on forcing us to Vista? Is it some hidden back door? Why would Microsoft care which OS we run given that we have paid them for Vista and paid a second time for XP? What is their motive for mandating this type of issue? Why would they dictate that the sales support for XP has been dropped so quickly?
Something is awry here.
It is easy to fight an idea when your target audience isn't quite sure about what it is. You simply obfuscate the idea and then substitute your own definition of it. Essentially, you take ownership of it.
I meant they are a convicted criminal monopolist.
Those paying would probably wind up in jail as Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and being a monopolist they can't do things that a non-monopolist could do.
I'd say people would wind up in jail for paying others to not develop for the competitor, if it ever could be proven.
To have isn't enough. It must also have the mind share. You must think Windows for it to have the power it has.
Linux allows others to think alternatively. Linux is now successful in acquiring the mind share of 30,000,000 people world-wide. Today that number could be even higher.
Using Windows to play games isn't gaining mind share. Add complexity to the OS, make it hard so that you don't want to learn another and get people involved at an early age and you have your next generation of mind share even if it somewhat cancerous.
The Extend portion is an attempt to get you to accept their definition of what Open Source is. When businesses accept their definition they'll accept fewer and fewer products created with any other definition. They'll have effectively obfuscated what Open Source is thus enabling them to control it's future.
Extinguish.
One of the main tenants of their business tactics against any type of competitor. This is a proven tactic that they have used year after year on company after company.
There is no place for Microsoft in the open source movement. This is an attempt by them to grasp a hold of the concept in an effort to redefine it and eliminate it. This is something none of us should want.
Open source is changing the way the software world works. It is having tremendous positive effects with little to no detrimental effect.
A couple years ago Microsoft declared open source dead. Shortly after that they had a representative publicly state that by 2008 Microsoft's long term strategies would kill open source. Shortly after that Microsoft began it's accusations that Open Source violates 235 of their patents. Within a year they claimed to have their own open source initiative and tried to get college students among others involved. In short order they then declared their attempts to embrace Linux distros willing to enter into IP sharing agreements with them. Now they invade all things Open Source.
Their goal? To get you to think that Open Source is what it is due to them and by virtue of their definition.
Today is the day when everyone should understand that embrace, extend, extinguish is a real tactic used ceaselessly by them.
They never gave into Open Source, they never adopted the goals or follow the definition of Open Source.
Open Source was defined many years ago with the hopes of ensuring that it would not be subverted. Those attempts at subversion are happening now, today. Let's be diligent and guard the gates and ensure that we protect that which is the future of all software.
Humble marketshare is relative. When Win 3.x came out marketshare was very small. It took years to grow it.
Linux worldwide is probably about 50 million installs. That's probably more than Microsoft had with Win 3.x a couple years into it's life cycle.
50 Million worldwide users compared to what a monopolist stole is still significant. If I had 50 million in my target audience I'd be proud.
A small percent of 90% is still a huge number when one understands what that 90% represents.
I thought we'd all learned that supporting Microsoft technologies allows Microsoft to use those technologies against the competition and against the user. Look at what we have today with Windows Vista. It has 47 different programs that collect information about you and report that back to Microsoft. This is not a good thing. It is a violation of your privacy. It is a terrible precedent.
Microsoft uses their techology to trap you into their operating system and thus traps you into buying their future products. Look at Word and the formats used. Those are meant to trap you into their products. Even their ISO efforts demonstrate their less than honest intentions in regards to standards. For example they are using their format to manipulate the ISO into adopting other formats for video, etc that were already denied ISO standardization.
Particularly this has to do with Moonlight. I personally remove silverlight from everyone's computer that comes into my store. I have also found that Microsoft is now installing their web search facilities onto people's computers without their knowledge of what it is and why it is being installed. Microsoft is using their monopoly to create a new monopoly in another market.
They are using silverlight to do the same thing. Not only that, if you remove silverlight, then tell silverlight not to ever be installed again, apply a few other critical patches and the silverlight prohibition reference is delete and you are prompted again to install it.
We do not, absolutely do not, want to pursue any Microsoft technology. It is in the best interests of the future of computing and the internet to not adopt Microsoft's technologies.
Closed proprietary operating systems should be a part of our past by now. We've learned how it has been used to prop up a monopolist. We've learned about the activities that were ultimately deemed criminal by our own court system (not just the federal but in many States as well) and others in other countries. We've learned how they use the OS to prop up other technologies and to create monopolies in those areas as well.
We would be so much better off to have learned our lesson and learn not to support Microsoft's technologies nor their products. I'm being serious. I'm stating the obvious. We should not be taken so easily by new products from Microsoft. Most of those were taken from others. Microsoft is able to deliver them because of their cash on hand. But in reality where did that cash come from? It came from funds collected during their criminal monopolistic activities.
As bad as all this sounds we should have learned. Haven't we learned?
What Google is saying is that they have no responsibility to protect anyone's privacy.
Of course there's privacy and of course there's an expectation of privacy, especially behind the doors of one's home.
Microsoft has essentially said that they would not honor anyone's privacy until the courts told them how much privacy they should protect. Google is doing the same thing here. Google is just saying that we can't protect your privacy so there is no privacy and so you should expect no privacy. They are saying that they have no intention of protecting anyone's privacy until the courts tell them that we actually do have privacy.
The courts do recognize privacy. The police authority also have to respect our privacy. Google's argument will fall on deaf ears. The jury will never accept ruling in favor of Google on this matter because they'll be saying that no one has any privacy. Would you want to be on the jury where you tell the people of the USA that they have no privacy?
This is a lame argument on Google's part.
Aside from that the merit of the case at hand is very dim. I don't see how they could win. Your garbage is private until you put it on the curb. Then it is free game. Your home is private inside yet not on the outside because it is in full view of everyone. Does that give Google the right to spread the view further? As much as it does to allow soemone to take a photo of your home or have a photo with your home in it. It is a far stretch. The plaintiff is hoping for a settlement. Google is hoping for summary judgement. Those inbetween (us) could loose something precious if Google wins. If the plaintiff wins we all could just end up being sued right and left for privacy violations because we take a photo of something, even if it doesn't make it into the public.
Google should not be posturing this position. Soon it will only be the rich that have privacy and all we have is our unspoken thoughts.
This is not an area where profit shouldn't be coming into play. Google should know better.
Honestly they can't think anything remotely like that will happen. People would drop them for the alternative in a heartbeat.
There are already too many negative things about comcast that would have people switch like crazy. Not to mention the government would probably enter the picture and force them into net neutrality.
Also, far too many legit services are handled via P2P.
This will leave a lot of rom for other companies to come in and fill the gaps. DSL will surge, alternative cable services, etc.
If they drop the customer's cable the customer will drop the TV and phone.
No one said AT&T was a smart company. They absolutely have never demonstrated that.
Don't even have to use profanity. Essentially you could say that "proprietard" is the equivalent of the expression of profanity you make.
I myself hate to be quoted because often doing so takes sentences and phrases out of context. Overall you have to read the meaning of what's being said and address that instead of nitpicking someone's inability to precisely elaborate what they mean. So, I won't do it to you.
Over the past decade you are correct, many of these issues existed, and some still exist. By far, the issues were addressed in the past couple years and most of the problems you speak about affect all the operating systems.
As a small business owner where I accept customer machines for repairs I can say that I have experienced all of the above issues in both the Windows arena and the Macintosh. In may ways, I experience them and a great number of additional problems,problems that make those above look quite minor.
As a person that can rightly compare my experiences in all three operating systems I have to say that my Linux boxes are better for desktop use, in general, for everyone, not just for the two extreme ends of the spectrum.
When I first looked at Linux it was a stable kernel with various tools used to maintain. Getting a GUI to work was very difficult. Today though getting your GUI to work and to make it act consistently is as easy as clicking the install icon.
What I noticed the other day though was that when I was looking at certain folders in gnome I noticed some had lists and some had icons. What I found was that when I looked at Windows I saw the same thing. I saw the same on the Macintosh I own. What I decided was that the apparent inconsistency had everything to do with me and nothing to do with gnome. I had been changing these and exiting the folders and when I came back they were as I had left them, and that made a somewhat inconsistent look, at least to anyone who doesn't really use the computer.
The issues you were having with drivers is really an issue with one design issue is one I take question with. The proprietary drivers require essentially that you build a kernel loadable module that is specific to the "kernel" release. When a new kernel is released you have to rebuild the kernel loadable module. That means that some drivers may appear to stop working, and in reality they can. Those drivers already found in the kernel are unaffected unless the entity that compiled the kernel did so and excluded certain pieces of hardware.
Now as I said I do take issue with this. And I have seen more than my share of unhappiness about it, but I have also learned to be careful about which updates I install, as all updates are optional. I agree that the average person wouldn't know which ones to avoid and this makes it doubly hard. In most cases, if you turn off the feature that flags you for updates the user will never know and their computer will continue to roll along, albeit sometimes wtihout the updates one might feel are necessary. Overall, tho I think the issue with updating the kernel when proprietary drivers are involved needs work and there should be some warning that doing this could cause problems.
As far as the video settings goes that's actually the issue with the drivers that you spoke about later. I say that because you appear to have 3-4 entries when all three are the same cause, though they may manifest themselves differently.
Networking really, for me and for everyone I have set linux up on has become a non issue, unless it is a wireless thing. Yes, wireless is sort of in the dead zone and significant work needs to be done. I honestly feel that it is tough for the developers and they tend to beg out when it gets tough. We don't see them put in the effort necessary to solve this.
Much of what you are telling us is really related to the hardware manufacturers not providing drivers or not providing proper specificications so that they can be created. I also think the hardware manufacturers are gun shy due to Microsoft hostilities toward the open source community when they issued threats of lawsuits about 235 alleged patent violations. Those were
At my shop I'm tasked to remove Vista and replace it with XP on more machines than I see with Vista come in for other issues. Those vista issues I do see are nasty and show how haphazardly the OS was implemented.
I have also been tasked more in the past few months to put linux on machines even for elderly people. People in their late 60s to early 80s want me to put Linux on their computers. And, when done I rarely hear back from them. Those that do visit me say that Linux is working well for them and that aside from the normal learning curve and some glitches Linux appears to do all that they want.
As far as the glitches go Linux is no more glitch prone than XP or Vista. At least with Linux you are guaranteed your privacy and you are significantly more secure. No one in the open source community will get away with trying to install 47 programs onto your computer that monitor what you do and report it back to Microsoft. No one will put a tool in there that forces you to activate your product and regularly report back to them (as Microsoft does) about your continued use.
Under linux you don't pay for software, software that is by all intents and purposes as competent as their commercial counter parts.
I'm happy to be the one that demonstrates a solid and attractive desktop linux to the customers that come into my store and that look at it and want it.
Two people yesterday alone looked at my desktop and thought it was beautiful and when I showed them some of the features they felt it was fancy.
What does this mean? It means that the linux is getting to the average person who can see that it is running your computer and doing things your way (without the worry of viruses, malware, and Microsoft) that's important .
Everyday Linux makes programs in most arenas. My hat goes off to those that work hard to make it possible.