Of course Alphabet gets the tax write-off. That's why the "banker" at the top changed the rules. To that mindset, employees are just a drag on revenues and not worth what they're paid...no matter how low. And, now, with a new appointment to leadership for the Department of Labor, we can expect any "floor" on earnings in general (e.g., "minimum wage") to evaporate to zero.
We are merely serfs working in the world created by, and enjoyed solely by, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).
Know your place, serf. You exist only to benefit the wealthy...unless you ARE wealthy.
That may be your way, but it's a dead-end. That "pseudo-language" is a prototype of most high-level programming languages, and limiting your self to your sole preferred language is like speaking only English and then trying to work in a foreign country...a fish out of water.
You need the flexibility of mind that comes from learning more languages. In the computer field I've written code in over 50; all I have to figure out at the start is which objects this language uses...the rest is easy; there are only sequence, alternation and iteration at the root of them all. It's the implied attributes of the various data structures that can be created, and the linguistic elements that refer to them that makes one language different from another. Compare Windows CMD with PowerShell, to see what I mean.
On the other hand, in the realm of natural languages I have command of one, and remanents of the Japanese I learned living there in the late 1950s.
I first started programming in 1962, on IBM 1401 (dearly loved it's variable-length memory management) and IBM 704 (briefly, before it was replaced with a 709, then the 7090). I used to take a massive printout of the IBSYS operating system for the latter to understand how real people wrote code to achieve an outcome; that was back when programmers still felt it was essential to write comments to explain what/why that specific code was there, and its' purpose). At the same time, I was a junior member of a group of "code sharers" at C-E-I-R; we evolved a punched-card deck for the IBM 1401 that became the basis of every program we subsequently wrote (I ran into the deck, called "CELIB"--for CEIR Library--several years later in a consulting gig in Australia, where they'd been using it for more than a decade after originally getting as part of a contract delivery...which my name in some of the comments). I was also engaged in running huge "linear programming" models on the 7090, such as one that forecast the likely economic consequences to the U.S. of removing the tobacco industry (i.e., abolishing the manufacture and sale of products), but the code was written by my more mathemathically endowed superiors, Eli Hellerman and William Orchard-Hays and you may know it as LP90, which was posted to the SHARE library at IBM; I just wrote some utilities.).
So, by the time Knuth published, I was an experienced programmer, and I devoured his books with interest. Like many programmers and professionals in allied fields, there were lessons to glean (like, "Wow, that's clever," or "Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at that problem"). I'm sure they influenced me, but it was not a "cookbook" to me. After I read them, they went on a shelf, and moved from home to home, and they still reside in a prominent place on my bookshelf, but gathering dust.
Programmers, today (especially those under 35 years of age) seem to eschew the idea that anybody else's code could be educational, and I find that an odd and juvenile approach to the world. We must stand on the shoulders of giants, and I still, to this day, learn new techniques and insights (and folly) in others' code. But, I got here (now aged 75, and still writing the odd bit of code; even CMD language) by learning from others, for no ONE of knows as much as ALL of us.
...so they can use their "telemetry" to sell you to advertisers.
Great argument, there, Microsoft. Since changing all the end-user agreements so they're all biased toward M$'s income, and their operational assumption that YOU bought your computer, but M$ owns it, lock, stock and barrel...sure, let's all start using the unnecessary and irrelevant "Windows 10" layer to build Linux apps on.
Bellevue seems to be surrounded by mirrors, reflecting every image back to it's occupants.
Currently, a domain name can be registered with any name at all, and payments can be made in ways that are virtually anonymous. The fact is, that the "WhoIs" feature allows anyone who wants to can find the information that was used to register that website. Because spammers used that information to harvest lots of email addresses, new businesses cropped up to create a layer of identity security; you'll notice the registered name is changed to refer to the entity that holds the information outside the domain-name registration service, and many of us use that to avoid the spam and nuisance problems. You can reach the domain owner, but they have the freedom to not respond.
The difficulty comes when someone has used a domain name for illegal or nefarious purposes. Law enforcement needs the right to find out who owns a particular domain name, but, to protect free speech, they should require a court-ordered warrant for that information (and that should not be a SECRET court, like the certain governments and agencies have; every person, whether common citizen or crook, must have a legal right to defense and representation by a lawyer who argues FOR privacy on behalf of the unnamed defendant). So, the domain name system SHOULD allow ownership to be concealed, and any attempt to reveal that information should be publicly announced, so the owner has the legal right to challenge the legal proceeding through legal representation. That eliminates the "nuisance" suits (e.g., by spammers, from whom the courts could reject the requests), while allowing legitimate needs for access to that information (e.g., so the domain name owner can't engage in on-line crimes with anonynimity) under judicial overview. That would preserve privacy, and the party asking for the information would have to prove in court a legitimate and legal RIGHT to that information.
Further, the legal proceeding should have to take place in the legal domain (e.g., country, and/or state) where the registrant lives, so that the inconvenience of distance or jurisdiction can't be be used as a "dodge" to get that information without defense by the anonymous domain owner.
...until there is universal, reliable and inviolable security on digital systems. The printed document is still more reliable than the hard disk or flash drive, all care having been taken in all cases. Courts still require "copies" of printed documents, not the assertion that a flash drive is representative.
We've got a long way to go. Technology is about what SELLS, not about the best long-term solution for endemic problems.
...as a consultant ON the IBM Team designing the first (floppy-based) "Personal Computer." But, there were already many companies on the market with their own "microcomputers." IBM didn't "invent" the personal computer, they invented the NAME "Personal Computer."
And, FYI, the first prototype had two floppy disk drives on one SIDE, so the "front" would look "clean." Then somebody noticed that the "return" on L-shaped desks--where they'd likely be installed--would block access to those slots, so the second prototype had just one slot...on the front. That's what went to market...with a monochrome green display. It wasn't until the "Personal Computer XT" (the second model) that they even put a hard disk drive (a whopping 10 MB!) inside.
Some people probably ought to consider reading Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer).
Also, Microsoft created the first DOS operating system for the original PC, and has been responsible for all the buggy operating system software they've sold since then, up to and including Windows 10. That's the price we pay for an "open ecosystem," instead of the "closed ecosystem" of Apple products. We have access to a lot more software options in the "open" ecosystem, but we--as a consumer community--have never, ever really held Microsoft's feet to the fire of quality, and they've made a fortune selling broken products, then convincing us to climb aboard the "upgrade train," always with promises that "this time, it will be better." (See higuita's post, above.) Now, Microsoft has (recently) changed all their "User Agreement" terms (which you accept by using their products) so that we no longer have even that right!
They're going to have to start upping the quality of content. Their rude rip-off of the Brits' "House of Cards" has been a long, drawn-out mess, with none of the political logic in the original...and Spacey is LOUSY as a corrupt politician. We watch a lot more British shows than we do Netflix, and what we DO enjoy on Netflix are recent series we wouldn't otherwise get (think Miss Fisher's Mysteries, or Doc Martin).
If they favor their own content, licensing will be cheaper, but they'll bear ALL the production costs, and with a corporate cheapskate like Netflix that means YouTube quality scripts, and production values.
The very popular HP m451 is a Color Laser with a very attractive price, but the cartridges (e.g. the black CE410X) is priced at HP at $103.99 each. I was replacing that, and the three color cartridges about every six months. But, I got suspicious. So, when the messages started showing up on my computer about the toner being low, I decided to ignore them. Then the printer started demanding I press the "OK" button to print because, it claimed, the "Black cartridge is Very Low." After I punched the button, the next message suggests that print quality will be poor, and "could become gray."
However, I have now printed more than a ream and a half (about 750 pages) with not a single flaw in the quality of black printing without changing the cartridge (yet). It is clearly a scam.
I think there's a specific intent to delude customers into buying excessively-priced cartridges LONG before they're empty, as a means to increase HP's supplies income at the expense of customers. By charging excessive prices, and rigging their printer software to emit scary messages long before the toner is exhausted, HP is reaping huge income increases. Messrs. Hewlett and Packard are spinning in their graves, because the company has now sunk so low as to scam their customers with specifically designed software to encourage them to throw away still usable toner cartridges.
If others can share similar stories, this seems ripe for a class-action lawyer to file a legitimate case of fraud against HP for designing the software to try to scare people into buying over-priced cartridges when the existing cartridge is far from empty.
Actually, zoning laws are quite valid, where the lawmakers can justify it. We don't want garbage dumps next to homes, nor cemeteries in the town square. But, this kind of absurd law...and Palo Alto's failure to enforce it for years (decades?) makes it moot.
#1. Because they provide tax revenues from many businesses that otherwise would enjoy income only in the evenings (e.g., restaurants).
#2. Because they work inside existing buildings, without crowding out retail "frontage" on main streets.
#3. Because being together creates interchange of information and ideas, leading to even more new tech startsup.
#4: Because programming (aka coding) is becoming embedded in the mid-level jobs of nearly everyone working at a desk in that city.
#5: Because these four things improve Palo Alto's sales tax (8.75%) revenues, in addition to major local property taxes from those very businesses.
I suspect the writer of the original story doesn't understand the issues, and if there IS a "zoning regulation banning firms whose 'primary business is research and development, including software coding,' it's likely to be challenged, successfully, in court, on First Amendment grounds. The proof would be on Palo Alto city government to show the putative harm to University Ave. businesses. And, that their neglect of that ordinance for decades has been their own fault.
Despite your vulgarity, there are another options: I always keep one of my three backup drives in the trunk of my car (the second is standby, the first is connected, and I rotate them regularly). The car is almost always with me, and the first thing I'd do in case of fire is to get the car out of the garage.
If that's not adequate, you can rent a cheap safety deposit box at your local bank. I did that for years, especially when the data included a lot of client data on them (I'm now retired).
When I've tracked branded CD/DVD/BluRay back to the source, I most often find branded products were all made in the same factory anyway, so why buy anything more expensive. And, yes, I still have DVDs and CDs from 10 or more years ago that are as fresh as the day they were made.
I've used Linux and Windows (and Unix, and OS/360 and IBSYS, etc.) for years, and have several clients on Windows.
The key issues for them are industry-specific software products at the core of their businesses which, without, they would have a significantly smaller number of business opportunities. These products are often poorly maintained, or not updated very often, and so require very strictly-configured Windows systems. Wine (or other attempts to emulate Windows) is not a solution; it merely introduces even more problems that need more frequent attention.
I've always argued for Windows over Apple, because, my reasoning was, Windows is an "open" ecosystem, while Apple is a "closed" system. Now that M$ is closing up its' systems, giving us less stability, and forcing updates we don't want or need (e.g., "telemetry," which is just a cover word for "spying"), that distinction is significantly eroded. The "one-size fits all" approach to Windows maintenance leaves me scared, and unhappy.
We still need stable operating systems, delivered by honorable people trying to do their best in a constantly-moving field, and I fear that we (and include myself) have let M$ corrupt themselves and their products by flocking to them despite rampant, unmitigated bugs and defects accepted without rebellion. For instance: Look at the sad state of affairs in the inability of huge fractions of the Windows 7 and 8 customer populations who can't get Windows Update to run reliably
The market is ripe for a new commercial (not open-sourced) operating system that can become the new standard bearer, because I doubt Microsoft will reverse their trend; they're capitalizing on past success, and tempting future failure.
I would prefer an open-sourced solution (for security reasons), but time has proven that there is little incentive for improving and stabilizing products that are good, but not rewarded with huge income. While I appreciate the Linux movement, and the common source of kernels, there is too little invested in pre-release testing, because there's no money...and it's been so successful, M$ clearly decided, last year, with Windows 10, to follow that same lead. M$'s twist is to make revenue from the final product. So far, not one of my clients (and I) have found a need to move to Windows 10, largely because of Microsoft's changes in licensing agreement, and their abandonment of insistence on quality in their paid-for and delivered products.
Fortunately (for me), I've decided to retire at the end of this year, so I'll stick with my existing infrastructure at home 'til they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. My clientele are fearful, because the alternatives they've interviewed to take my place are generally unskilled, and barely able to change batteries in their laptops. So, part of the problem is the acceptance of these declining standards Microsoft USED to uphold, by the self-proclaimed "techies" who are too brainwashed to understand the problems they have to get around to keep business systems running, all the time.
Only an A.C. can make this claim. Fully one third of people DON'T want or need a cellphone, and of those, about half can't afford it. Further, as others have noted, many people don't even KNOW HOW to enable SMS on their cellphone. This is gubmint bureaucracy at it's worst: MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY system design. They can use email, and anyone who access My SSA through the internet has an email address...or can get one, free.
Slashdot Mirror
Said like a true plutocrat.
Of course Alphabet gets the tax write-off. That's why the "banker" at the top changed the rules. To that mindset, employees are just a drag on revenues and not worth what they're paid...no matter how low. And, now, with a new appointment to leadership for the Department of Labor, we can expect any "floor" on earnings in general (e.g., "minimum wage") to evaporate to zero.
We are merely serfs working in the world created by, and enjoyed solely by, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).
Know your place, serf. You exist only to benefit the wealthy...unless you ARE wealthy.
Elegantly put by someone who's clearly a life-long learner.
A well spoken contrast to many of the monolingual posting here.
That may be your way, but it's a dead-end. That "pseudo-language" is a prototype of most high-level programming languages, and limiting your self to your sole preferred language is like speaking only English and then trying to work in a foreign country...a fish out of water.
You need the flexibility of mind that comes from learning more languages. In the computer field I've written code in over 50; all I have to figure out at the start is which objects this language uses...the rest is easy; there are only sequence, alternation and iteration at the root of them all. It's the implied attributes of the various data structures that can be created, and the linguistic elements that refer to them that makes one language different from another. Compare Windows CMD with PowerShell, to see what I mean.
On the other hand, in the realm of natural languages I have command of one, and remanents of the Japanese I learned living there in the late 1950s.
I still have Volumes 1, 2 and 3...gathering dust.
I first started programming in 1962, on IBM 1401 (dearly loved it's variable-length memory management) and IBM 704 (briefly, before it was replaced with a 709, then the 7090). I used to take a massive printout of the IBSYS operating system for the latter to understand how real people wrote code to achieve an outcome; that was back when programmers still felt it was essential to write comments to explain what/why that specific code was there, and its' purpose). At the same time, I was a junior member of a group of "code sharers" at C-E-I-R; we evolved a punched-card deck for the IBM 1401 that became the basis of every program we subsequently wrote (I ran into the deck, called "CELIB"--for CEIR Library--several years later in a consulting gig in Australia, where they'd been using it for more than a decade after originally getting as part of a contract delivery...which my name in some of the comments). I was also engaged in running huge "linear programming" models on the 7090, such as one that forecast the likely economic consequences to the U.S. of removing the tobacco industry (i.e., abolishing the manufacture and sale of products), but the code was written by my more mathemathically endowed superiors, Eli Hellerman and William Orchard-Hays and you may know it as LP90, which was posted to the SHARE library at IBM; I just wrote some utilities.).
So, by the time Knuth published, I was an experienced programmer, and I devoured his books with interest. Like many programmers and professionals in allied fields, there were lessons to glean (like, "Wow, that's clever," or "Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at that problem"). I'm sure they influenced me, but it was not a "cookbook" to me. After I read them, they went on a shelf, and moved from home to home, and they still reside in a prominent place on my bookshelf, but gathering dust.
Programmers, today (especially those under 35 years of age) seem to eschew the idea that anybody else's code could be educational, and I find that an odd and juvenile approach to the world. We must stand on the shoulders of giants, and I still, to this day, learn new techniques and insights (and folly) in others' code. But, I got here (now aged 75, and still writing the odd bit of code; even CMD language) by learning from others, for no ONE of knows as much as ALL of us.
...so they can use their "telemetry" to sell you to advertisers.
Great argument, there, Microsoft. Since changing all the end-user agreements so they're all biased toward M$'s income, and their operational assumption that YOU bought your computer, but M$ owns it, lock, stock and barrel...sure, let's all start using the unnecessary and irrelevant "Windows 10" layer to build Linux apps on.
Bellevue seems to be surrounded by mirrors, reflecting every image back to it's occupants.
Currently, a domain name can be registered with any name at all, and payments can be made in ways that are virtually anonymous. The fact is, that the "WhoIs" feature allows anyone who wants to can find the information that was used to register that website. Because spammers used that information to harvest lots of email addresses, new businesses cropped up to create a layer of identity security; you'll notice the registered name is changed to refer to the entity that holds the information outside the domain-name registration service, and many of us use that to avoid the spam and nuisance problems. You can reach the domain owner, but they have the freedom to not respond.
The difficulty comes when someone has used a domain name for illegal or nefarious purposes. Law enforcement needs the right to find out who owns a particular domain name, but, to protect free speech, they should require a court-ordered warrant for that information (and that should not be a SECRET court, like the certain governments and agencies have; every person, whether common citizen or crook, must have a legal right to defense and representation by a lawyer who argues FOR privacy on behalf of the unnamed defendant). So, the domain name system SHOULD allow ownership to be concealed, and any attempt to reveal that information should be publicly announced, so the owner has the legal right to challenge the legal proceeding through legal representation. That eliminates the "nuisance" suits (e.g., by spammers, from whom the courts could reject the requests), while allowing legitimate needs for access to that information (e.g., so the domain name owner can't engage in on-line crimes with anonynimity) under judicial overview. That would preserve privacy, and the party asking for the information would have to prove in court a legitimate and legal RIGHT to that information.
Further, the legal proceeding should have to take place in the legal domain (e.g., country, and/or state) where the registrant lives, so that the inconvenience of distance or jurisdiction can't be be used as a "dodge" to get that information without defense by the anonymous domain owner.
...until there is universal, reliable and inviolable security on digital systems.
The printed document is still more reliable than the hard disk or flash drive, all care having been taken in all cases.
Courts still require "copies" of printed documents, not the assertion that a flash drive is representative.
We've got a long way to go. Technology is about what SELLS, not about the best long-term solution for endemic problems.
...sexless reproduction.
If you have a legitimate opinion, why are you so afraid of being identified with it?
Ok, now all you ACs can try to attack me by responding to this post. That's why most Trolls are ACs, and vice versa.
If you won't own your own words, you aren't worth my attention.
TCO = Total Cost of Ownership
Customarily computed over the useful life of the product in actual productive environments.
...as a consultant ON the IBM Team designing the first (floppy-based) "Personal Computer." But, there were already many companies on the market with their own "microcomputers." IBM didn't "invent" the personal computer, they invented the NAME "Personal Computer."
And, FYI, the first prototype had two floppy disk drives on one SIDE, so the "front" would look "clean." Then somebody noticed that the "return" on L-shaped desks--where they'd likely be installed--would block access to those slots, so the second prototype had just one slot...on the front. That's what went to market...with a monochrome green display. It wasn't until the "Personal Computer XT" (the second model) that they even put a hard disk drive (a whopping 10 MB!) inside.
Some people probably ought to consider reading Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer).
Also, Microsoft created the first DOS operating system for the original PC, and has been responsible for all the buggy operating system software they've sold since then, up to and including Windows 10. That's the price we pay for an "open ecosystem," instead of the "closed ecosystem" of Apple products. We have access to a lot more software options in the "open" ecosystem, but we--as a consumer community--have never, ever really held Microsoft's feet to the fire of quality, and they've made a fortune selling broken products, then convincing us to climb aboard the "upgrade train," always with promises that "this time, it will be better." (See higuita's post, above.) Now, Microsoft has (recently) changed all their "User Agreement" terms (which you accept by using their products) so that we no longer have even that right!
...we have so many secret patches that can no longer be selectively applied each month.
I am severely disappointed that Microsoft's CEO has publicly sunk so low that he now must lie to get attention. Is he voting for Trump???
Amen! AMEN!
...another stupid idea for all those Trump voters to attach themselves to.
They're going to have to start upping the quality of content. Their rude rip-off of the Brits' "House of Cards" has been a long, drawn-out mess, with none of the political logic in the original...and Spacey is LOUSY as a corrupt politician. We watch a lot more British shows than we do Netflix, and what we DO enjoy on Netflix are recent series we wouldn't otherwise get (think Miss Fisher's Mysteries, or Doc Martin).
If they favor their own content, licensing will be cheaper, but they'll bear ALL the production costs, and with a corporate cheapskate like Netflix that means YouTube quality scripts, and production values.
The very popular HP m451 is a Color Laser with a very attractive price, but the cartridges (e.g. the black CE410X) is priced at HP at $103.99 each. I was replacing that, and the three color cartridges about every six months. But, I got suspicious. So, when the messages started showing up on my computer about the toner being low, I decided to ignore them. Then the printer started demanding I press the "OK" button to print because, it claimed, the "Black cartridge is Very Low." After I punched the button, the next message suggests that print quality will be poor, and "could become gray."
However, I have now printed more than a ream and a half (about 750 pages) with not a single flaw in the quality of black printing without changing the cartridge (yet). It is clearly a scam.
I think there's a specific intent to delude customers into buying excessively-priced cartridges LONG before they're empty, as a means to increase HP's supplies income at the expense of customers. By charging excessive prices, and rigging their printer software to emit scary messages long before the toner is exhausted, HP is reaping huge income increases. Messrs. Hewlett and Packard are spinning in their graves, because the company has now sunk so low as to scam their customers with specifically designed software to encourage them to throw away still usable toner cartridges.
If others can share similar stories, this seems ripe for a class-action lawyer to file a legitimate case of fraud against HP for designing the software to try to scare people into buying over-priced cartridges when the existing cartridge is far from empty.
Actually, zoning laws are quite valid, where the lawmakers can justify it. We don't want garbage dumps next to homes, nor cemeteries in the town square. But, this kind of absurd law...and Palo Alto's failure to enforce it for years (decades?) makes it moot.
Your language of hatred does nothing to boost the significance of your opinion.
#1. Because they provide tax revenues from many businesses that otherwise would enjoy income only in the evenings (e.g., restaurants).
#2. Because they work inside existing buildings, without crowding out retail "frontage" on main streets.
#3. Because being together creates interchange of information and ideas, leading to even more new tech startsup.
#4: Because programming (aka coding) is becoming embedded in the mid-level jobs of nearly everyone working at a desk in that city.
#5: Because these four things improve Palo Alto's sales tax (8.75%) revenues, in addition to major local property taxes from those very businesses.
I suspect the writer of the original story doesn't understand the issues, and if there IS a "zoning regulation banning firms whose 'primary business is research and development, including software coding,' it's likely to be challenged, successfully, in court, on First Amendment grounds. The proof would be on Palo Alto city government to show the putative harm to University Ave. businesses. And, that their neglect of that ordinance for decades has been their own fault.
Despite your vulgarity, there are another options: I always keep one of my three backup drives in the trunk of my car (the second is standby, the first is connected, and I rotate them regularly). The car is almost always with me, and the first thing I'd do in case of fire is to get the car out of the garage.
If that's not adequate, you can rent a cheap safety deposit box at your local bank. I did that for years, especially when the data included a lot of client data on them (I'm now retired).
When I've tracked branded CD/DVD/BluRay back to the source, I most often find branded products were all made in the same factory anyway, so why buy anything more expensive. And, yes, I still have DVDs and CDs from 10 or more years ago that are as fresh as the day they were made.
I've used Linux and Windows (and Unix, and OS/360 and IBSYS, etc.) for years, and have several clients on Windows.
The key issues for them are industry-specific software products at the core of their businesses which, without, they would have a significantly smaller number of business opportunities. These products are often poorly maintained, or not updated very often, and so require very strictly-configured Windows systems. Wine (or other attempts to emulate Windows) is not a solution; it merely introduces even more problems that need more frequent attention.
I've always argued for Windows over Apple, because, my reasoning was, Windows is an "open" ecosystem, while Apple is a "closed" system. Now that M$ is closing up its' systems, giving us less stability, and forcing updates we don't want or need (e.g., "telemetry," which is just a cover word for "spying"), that distinction is significantly eroded.
The "one-size fits all" approach to Windows maintenance leaves me scared, and unhappy.
We still need stable operating systems, delivered by honorable people trying to do their best in a constantly-moving field, and I fear that we (and include myself) have let M$ corrupt themselves and their products by flocking to them despite rampant, unmitigated bugs and defects accepted without rebellion. For instance: Look at the sad state of affairs in the inability of huge fractions of the Windows 7 and 8 customer populations who can't get Windows Update to run reliably
The market is ripe for a new commercial (not open-sourced) operating system that can become the new standard bearer, because I doubt Microsoft will reverse their trend; they're capitalizing on past success, and tempting future failure.
I would prefer an open-sourced solution (for security reasons), but time has proven that there is little incentive for improving and stabilizing products that are good, but not rewarded with huge income. While I appreciate the Linux movement, and the common source of kernels, there is too little invested in pre-release testing, because there's no money...and it's been so successful, M$ clearly decided, last year, with Windows 10, to follow that same lead. M$'s twist is to make revenue from the final product. So far, not one of my clients (and I) have found a need to move to Windows 10, largely because of Microsoft's changes in licensing agreement, and their abandonment of insistence on quality in their paid-for and delivered products.
Fortunately (for me), I've decided to retire at the end of this year, so I'll stick with my existing infrastructure at home 'til they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. My clientele are fearful, because the alternatives they've interviewed to take my place are generally unskilled, and barely able to change batteries in their laptops. So, part of the problem is the acceptance of these declining standards Microsoft USED to uphold, by the self-proclaimed "techies" who are too brainwashed to understand the problems they have to get around to keep business systems running, all the time.
Only an A.C. can make this claim. Fully one third of people DON'T want or need a cellphone, and of those, about half can't afford it. Further, as others have noted, many people don't even KNOW HOW to enable SMS on their cellphone. This is gubmint bureaucracy at it's worst: MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY system design. They can use email, and anyone who access My SSA through the internet has an email address...or can get one, free.