Well, my plan has two distinct advantages over yours: 1) No normal human being will EVER say "GNU/Linux" out-loud. So your plan makes it impossible to talk about "the OS based on the Linux kernel" on TV or the radio or in casual conversation; instead people will just shorten it to "Linux" and we get the same thing we have now. 2) People *already* use the term "Linux" to mean "the OS based on the Linux kernel", regardless of what Linus thinks of it.
I've only ever seen that bug in Slashdot articles. You could at least make some attempt to document it with an MS support link or something, but as-is I'm dismissing that as the usual Slashdot crap.
XP -> Home version. Win2k3 -> XP server. Vista -> Home version. Win7 -> Vista server.
Er... what's Windows Server 2008? Chopped liver? Isn't that the server version of Vista? Or are you just commenting on an OS market you're entirely ignorant about?
If you want to get all Semantics Nazi, you can start with the fact that 90% of all computer-illiterate users still refer to the black box on the floor with the Dell logo as a "CPU." Good luck.
It's the centralized location for all the computer's processing. And "unit" is pretty much filler. And it's not like a computer's case has any less-awkward term than "computer case." (Or, "the black box on the floor" as you put it.)
Stop being so holier-than-though, high priesthood of technology. There's nothing wrong with calling a computer's case a "CPU".
For example. Your suggestion is great for actual named products, but most things in an OS are not that-- the software that controls the printer has a name, but where would the average user be expected to find it? Or the software that controls the volume buttons on their keyboard? Or any of a hundred things that could go wrong in a typical Linux distribution.
You appear to claim that the kernel needs to "get its semantics in order" and call itself something other than Linux to avoid confusion. Why should the kernel drop the Linux name? The name Linux doesn't apply to any other part of the system. Calling the kernel "Bob" will only result in the following situation:
Well, you could for example take a three tiered approach, and call the kernel "Bob", the OS-based-on-the-kernel "Linux" (which is already the common usage for the word "Linux"), and keep the distribution name as-is. If you had thought about the problem for longer than the 17 milliseconds it took you to come up with that idiotic example.
You are simply ignoring the fact that people are saying that said vista default is a problem and blindly continuing to pretend people are saying that something else is the problem.
Ok; so how *should* Microsoft do it? If it doesn't install updates, they get chewed out for being insecure. If it lets people indefinitely delay updates, people don't install them, and they get chewed out for being insecure. If they make the updates happen automatically in the middle of the night, some crazy person is having a conference at 3:00 AM and they get chewed out for terrible usability.
What *should* they be doing? Which option would make you happy?
The default is a problem, we are on a globe and interacting with people who aren't on local time. Having conferences at late local hours and doing work at late local hours. Not to mention the fact that many of us leave processes running when we step away from the machine that are interrupted on systems where we forget to change that poor default behavior.
Ok, so what percentage of people is that? 0.1%? 0.5%? It couldn't possibly be more than that.
Even without that, automatically downloading code from a source I don't trust and installing it without my permission is a serious security breach.
If you don't trust Microsoft, then: 1) Why the fuck are you running Windows? 2) Why the fuck are you running Windows and haven't turned off automatic updates?
This point is completely irrational. "I run my entire computer on a codebase I don't trust! And so I don't want small portions of additional code I also don't trust!"
Last but not lease, requiring a reboot for anything short of kernel update is simply poor system design.
I agree; but what OS does it right? Linux can't update shared libraries in memory any more than OS X or Windows can. Sure, maybe they *should* be able to, but we're living here in the real world where nobody can.
Really Blakey, is there some reason you can be seen all over this story making the same apologies for Vista and unsubstantiated claims that the entire world is mistaken and nobody has tried it?
I have a knee-jerk reaction against bullshit, and when it comes to Vista, Slashdot in drowning in the stuff.
The problem is that the default behavior of vista is to download and install software (potentially bad software) without user intervention or even user notification unless the install is successful and system comes back online.
Have you even *used* Vista? You're getting wronger and wronger as time goes on.
The conference not being at 3am would just be coincidence. One time is as good as another and if said conference was an international one then 3am is a reasonable possibility. If for one have a computer usage that typically involves being in the middle of work at 3am.
Please. The conference was not at 3:00 AM. You're just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks while trying to argue against a perfectly reasonable feature implementation from Microsoft.
Yes, I get it: you hate Windows. The very thought that Windows might be on a computer makes you puke from disgust. But seriously, stop the FUD.
It's the *communicator's* job to be understood, not the comunicatee. (When you think about it, how could it work otherwise?)
If Linux has been unsuccessful at getting the populace to "reject mass media branding" for the last decade then it needs to give up on that and try something else. Like, for example, coming up with a decent naming scheme that people understand clearly.
I've never had any problems with Vista's speed. I think the reporting on how slow it is is based on:
1) A couple bad benchmarks during its beta (the infamous "file copy" one, for example, which was quickly fixed in the release version) 2) Massive amounts of exaggeration from people who haven't even tried Vista.
First of all, I'm pretty sure the post you're replying to was tongue-in-cheek.
Secondly, I'm guessing that the Windows 7 kernel has also been solidly finished for quite some time; few, if any, of the new features added to Windows 7 require kernel support.
Thirdly, Linux needs to get the goddamned semantics down already! Someone comes in, "I tried Linux and my printer didn't work" then the reply is, "Linux is a kernel!!! It doesn't do printers!" Well, ok, then CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. (Actually, I half-think the current confusing naming is on purpose, so there's always an 'out' to people who complain about Linux GUI problems.)
That's not the point at all, even though you are wrong about what is the default.
The default is to wait on the install until 3:00 AM, then install/restart then. Unless this talk was being given at 3:00 AM, there's no way this was the default behavior of Windows Vista. You're probably attached to a domain that has a rule forcing updates to happen more often.
Again, like I said, that is a *setting* that somebody has *changed*. The default for Vista is to only install updates at 3:00 AM local time.
I have no idea why people are saying I'm wrong on this. All Vista DVDs are the same, right? Or am I in some kind of bizarro fantasy-land?
Ummm... last I heard, default for Windows post-XP-SP2 is "Auto download, auto install". Now, I set it to "Notify only", but I'm pretty sure Vista is "Auto download, auto install" too, by default. Good for security, bad for usability.
You're right, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a person being *forced off* the computer to install the patch. Vista won't do that by default. The default in Vista is to wait until 3:00 AM local time and install/restart then. Unless this conference was being given at 3:00 AM, there's no way it was Vista's default behavior.
I'll grant the USB stick, but I've never seen a Mac or a Linux box forcibly install software and then reboot. That's just shoddy programming. Hell, you can run apt-get upgrade on a Debian box without anyone even noticing.
The point is that it's a SETTING, and her computer's behavior was not the default setting for Vista. You can also set really retarded settings in OS X or Linux, having a retarded setting is not OS-specific.
You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions here, none of which are true.
For example, than XP is cheaper than Vista. If you go to a computer maker and choose XP, you're usually charged more than if you want Vista.
You're also assuming that Windows 7 will be more expensive than XP; that almost certainly won't be true, especially in the netbook market where Windows 7 excels.
...is that this summer when I plan on purchasing a new PC, I better have the option of having XP as the only OS on the computer. No dual boot XP/Vista, no Windows 7, just XP.
Or else what? Is that some kind of threat?
And why would you care about a dual-boot computer, which obviously has a valid XP license so you could just remove Vista?
Man, lots of weird posts on this thread... slow down and think about what you're saying before you press Submit please.
to sell the 'ultimate' version only, and for 50 bucks to people who need to upgrade a current system. It needs to be ab;eto run on those machines.
I agree; offering free upgrades to certain Vista buyers is a good move, but it would be nice if *all* Vista buyers got a free upgrade token, or a discounted version like you suggest.
It needs to be ab;eto run on those machines.
It runs on much wimpier hardware than Vista likes, so no problem there.
It also needs be 64 bit with a nice emulator to run legacy apps.
And Microsoft should just give up on the netbook market? Not going to happen; you've just moved your post into fantasy-land.
Ironically, MS brought this problem on themselves with Access.
Uh, wha? What does Access have to do with anything relating to anything relating to upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7?
I actually want to stab the voice actor who played the Prince and whoever wrote his dialog. Maybe I'm crazy, but when I see something like a "Prince of Persia", I don't want them to talk like a skateboarder circa 1988.
As an old-school Mac user, it always seemed like a complete Windows clone to me. (Well, version 3.whatever did, I haven't used 4 yet.) From that perspective, GNOME looks the more "innovative."
Anyway, what's up with your post? You're basically just saying: "hey, KDE used to be 5 years ahead of Windows!" which is fine, but why the lame "hard to tell from the screenshots" framing device? Are you seriously looking for someone using KDE4 to reply with, "oh yes the screenshots are accurate, it is still 5 years ahead of Windows!" or something?
Too bad you're anonymous, I think this should be a +5 post.
This is almost the entire premise of usability: you can't change the 2 million years of hard-wiring in the human brain, but you *can* change the 5-year-old software product to better fit the expectations of that human brain. The fact that KDE doesn't even understand basic communication it does not bode well for its usability.
The idea that people don't read help files, release announcements, etc, isn't just a lame joke techies tell, it's documented fact. If you're just using that for CYA (which really I think is what's going on. "KDE is bad? Told ya it would be!") then fine, but if you're actually trying to communicate a message, then you better pay attention to what people read and what they don't. It's not hard-- there are entire websites dedicated to it-- but you have to make the effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Blakely, Have you ever finished a whole post without attempting some lame dig at GNU/Linux?
Yes I... wow the name "GNU/Linux" is about the dumbest name I've ever heard in my life you goddamned morons!
Oh. Nevermind.
Well, my plan has two distinct advantages over yours:
1) No normal human being will EVER say "GNU/Linux" out-loud. So your plan makes it impossible to talk about "the OS based on the Linux kernel" on TV or the radio or in casual conversation; instead people will just shorten it to "Linux" and we get the same thing we have now.
2) People *already* use the term "Linux" to mean "the OS based on the Linux kernel", regardless of what Linus thinks of it.
I've only ever seen that bug in Slashdot articles. You could at least make some attempt to document it with an MS support link or something, but as-is I'm dismissing that as the usual Slashdot crap.
XP -> Home version. Win2k3 -> XP server. Vista -> Home version. Win7 -> Vista server.
Er... what's Windows Server 2008? Chopped liver? Isn't that the server version of Vista? Or are you just commenting on an OS market you're entirely ignorant about?
If you want to get all Semantics Nazi, you can start with the fact that 90% of all computer-illiterate users still refer to the black box on the floor with the Dell logo as a "CPU." Good luck.
It's the centralized location for all the computer's processing. And "unit" is pretty much filler. And it's not like a computer's case has any less-awkward term than "computer case." (Or, "the black box on the floor" as you put it.)
Stop being so holier-than-though, high priesthood of technology. There's nothing wrong with calling a computer's case a "CPU".
For example. Your suggestion is great for actual named products, but most things in an OS are not that-- the software that controls the printer has a name, but where would the average user be expected to find it? Or the software that controls the volume buttons on their keyboard? Or any of a hundred things that could go wrong in a typical Linux distribution.
This power is simply too much for most end-users.
Then make it accessible! Duh!
You appear to claim that the kernel needs to "get its semantics in order" and call itself something other than Linux to avoid confusion. Why should the kernel drop the Linux name? The name Linux doesn't apply to any other part of the system. Calling the kernel "Bob" will only result in the following situation:
Well, you could for example take a three tiered approach, and call the kernel "Bob", the OS-based-on-the-kernel "Linux" (which is already the common usage for the word "Linux"), and keep the distribution name as-is. If you had thought about the problem for longer than the 17 milliseconds it took you to come up with that idiotic example.
You are simply ignoring the fact that people are saying that said vista default is a problem and blindly continuing to pretend people are saying that something else is the problem.
Ok; so how *should* Microsoft do it? If it doesn't install updates, they get chewed out for being insecure. If it lets people indefinitely delay updates, people don't install them, and they get chewed out for being insecure. If they make the updates happen automatically in the middle of the night, some crazy person is having a conference at 3:00 AM and they get chewed out for terrible usability.
What *should* they be doing? Which option would make you happy?
The default is a problem, we are on a globe and interacting with people who aren't on local time. Having conferences at late local hours and doing work at late local hours. Not to mention the fact that many of us leave processes running when we step away from the machine that are interrupted on systems where we forget to change that poor default behavior.
Ok, so what percentage of people is that? 0.1%? 0.5%? It couldn't possibly be more than that.
Even without that, automatically downloading code from a source I don't trust and installing it without my permission is a serious security breach.
If you don't trust Microsoft, then:
1) Why the fuck are you running Windows?
2) Why the fuck are you running Windows and haven't turned off automatic updates?
This point is completely irrational. "I run my entire computer on a codebase I don't trust! And so I don't want small portions of additional code I also don't trust!"
Last but not lease, requiring a reboot for anything short of kernel update is simply poor system design.
I agree; but what OS does it right? Linux can't update shared libraries in memory any more than OS X or Windows can. Sure, maybe they *should* be able to, but we're living here in the real world where nobody can.
Really Blakey, is there some reason you can be seen all over this story making the same apologies for Vista and unsubstantiated claims that the entire world is mistaken and nobody has tried it?
I have a knee-jerk reaction against bullshit, and when it comes to Vista, Slashdot in drowning in the stuff.
The problem is that the default behavior of vista is to download and install software (potentially bad software) without user intervention or even user notification unless the install is successful and system comes back online.
Have you even *used* Vista? You're getting wronger and wronger as time goes on.
The conference not being at 3am would just be coincidence. One time is as good as another and if said conference was an international one then 3am is a reasonable possibility. If for one have a computer usage that typically involves being in the middle of work at 3am.
Please. The conference was not at 3:00 AM. You're just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks while trying to argue against a perfectly reasonable feature implementation from Microsoft.
Yes, I get it: you hate Windows. The very thought that Windows might be on a computer makes you puke from disgust. But seriously, stop the FUD.
It's the *communicator's* job to be understood, not the comunicatee. (When you think about it, how could it work otherwise?)
If Linux has been unsuccessful at getting the populace to "reject mass media branding" for the last decade then it needs to give up on that and try something else. Like, for example, coming up with a decent naming scheme that people understand clearly.
For what it's worth, Vista had enough showstopper bugs on release day, it's hard to believe it ran through any kind of release candidate process.
Like what?
The only one I can think of is slightly slowed-down file copies, but I wouldn't call that a "show-stopper." It's not like the files ended up deleted.
There's a massive amount of hyperbole and exaggeration around Vista. I'm guessing most people participating in it haven't actually used the OS.
I've never had any problems with Vista's speed. I think the reporting on how slow it is is based on:
1) A couple bad benchmarks during its beta (the infamous "file copy" one, for example, which was quickly fixed in the release version)
2) Massive amounts of exaggeration from people who haven't even tried Vista.
There's also a possibility of:
3) Shitty driver support from OEMs.
Yeah, and a human is 97% genetically indistinguishable from a pig.
Viva la Difference!
First of all, I'm pretty sure the post you're replying to was tongue-in-cheek.
Secondly, I'm guessing that the Windows 7 kernel has also been solidly finished for quite some time; few, if any, of the new features added to Windows 7 require kernel support.
Thirdly, Linux needs to get the goddamned semantics down already! Someone comes in, "I tried Linux and my printer didn't work" then the reply is, "Linux is a kernel!!! It doesn't do printers!" Well, ok, then CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. (Actually, I half-think the current confusing naming is on purpose, so there's always an 'out' to people who complain about Linux GUI problems.)
That's not the point at all, even though you are wrong about what is the default.
The default is to wait on the install until 3:00 AM, then install/restart then. Unless this talk was being given at 3:00 AM, there's no way this was the default behavior of Windows Vista. You're probably attached to a domain that has a rule forcing updates to happen more often.
Again, like I said, that is a *setting* that somebody has *changed*. The default for Vista is to only install updates at 3:00 AM local time.
I have no idea why people are saying I'm wrong on this. All Vista DVDs are the same, right? Or am I in some kind of bizarro fantasy-land?
Ummm... last I heard, default for Windows post-XP-SP2 is "Auto download, auto install". Now, I set it to "Notify only", but I'm pretty sure Vista is "Auto download, auto install" too, by default. Good for security, bad for usability.
You're right, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a person being *forced off* the computer to install the patch. Vista won't do that by default. The default in Vista is to wait until 3:00 AM local time and install/restart then. Unless this conference was being given at 3:00 AM, there's no way it was Vista's default behavior.
I'll grant the USB stick, but I've never seen a Mac or a Linux box forcibly install software and then reboot. That's just shoddy programming. Hell, you can run apt-get upgrade on a Debian box without anyone even noticing.
The point is that it's a SETTING, and her computer's behavior was not the default setting for Vista. You can also set really retarded settings in OS X or Linux, having a retarded setting is not OS-specific.
You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions here, none of which are true.
For example, than XP is cheaper than Vista. If you go to a computer maker and choose XP, you're usually charged more than if you want Vista.
You're also assuming that Windows 7 will be more expensive than XP; that almost certainly won't be true, especially in the netbook market where Windows 7 excels.
...is that this summer when I plan on purchasing a new PC, I better have the option of having XP as the only OS on the computer. No dual boot XP/Vista, no Windows 7, just XP.
Or else what? Is that some kind of threat?
And why would you care about a dual-boot computer, which obviously has a valid XP license so you could just remove Vista?
Man, lots of weird posts on this thread... slow down and think about what you're saying before you press Submit please.
to sell the 'ultimate' version only, and for 50 bucks to people who need to upgrade a current system.
It needs to be ab;eto run on those machines.
I agree; offering free upgrades to certain Vista buyers is a good move, but it would be nice if *all* Vista buyers got a free upgrade token, or a discounted version like you suggest.
It needs to be ab;eto run on those machines.
It runs on much wimpier hardware than Vista likes, so no problem there.
It also needs be 64 bit with a nice emulator to run legacy apps.
And Microsoft should just give up on the netbook market? Not going to happen; you've just moved your post into fantasy-land.
Ironically, MS brought this problem on themselves with Access.
Uh, wha? What does Access have to do with anything relating to anything relating to upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7?
I actually want to stab the voice actor who played the Prince and whoever wrote his dialog. Maybe I'm crazy, but when I see something like a "Prince of Persia", I don't want them to talk like a skateboarder circa 1988.
Here's my review, if anybody cares to read it:
http://blakeyrat.com/2009/01/14/prince-of-persia-review/
"Revolted"? Seriously? "The 'home' button is on the right! PUKE!"
Yeah, but it was easy for them. They only have that one "Five-O" show to convert. The rest of us have tons of different TV shows that need converting.
As an old-school Mac user, it always seemed like a complete Windows clone to me. (Well, version 3.whatever did, I haven't used 4 yet.) From that perspective, GNOME looks the more "innovative."
Anyway, what's up with your post? You're basically just saying: "hey, KDE used to be 5 years ahead of Windows!" which is fine, but why the lame "hard to tell from the screenshots" framing device? Are you seriously looking for someone using KDE4 to reply with, "oh yes the screenshots are accurate, it is still 5 years ahead of Windows!" or something?
Too bad you're anonymous, I think this should be a +5 post.
This is almost the entire premise of usability: you can't change the 2 million years of hard-wiring in the human brain, but you *can* change the 5-year-old software product to better fit the expectations of that human brain. The fact that KDE doesn't even understand basic communication it does not bode well for its usability.
The idea that people don't read help files, release announcements, etc, isn't just a lame joke techies tell, it's documented fact. If you're just using that for CYA (which really I think is what's going on. "KDE is bad? Told ya it would be!") then fine, but if you're actually trying to communicate a message, then you better pay attention to what people read and what they don't. It's not hard-- there are entire websites dedicated to it-- but you have to make the effort.