Of course they know about the data you've provided to them directly. That's the whole point of logging in; I didn't think I needed to spell that out. Let me revise my earlier statement: "While technically all three do store some login-related data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything related to your login other than the public OpenID portion"
What bothers me the most is that my data could be lost through no fault of my own, and no fault of the site storing the data. If Yahoo decides to stop being an OpenID provider, poof, suddenly that data's gone; it's not my fault, and it's not siteiloginto.com's fault, but it's still gone. I'd much, much prefer to just log on normally.
While I agree that OpenID probably isn't easy enough for non-geeks, at least not without hand-holding, I certainly wouldn't recommend a service like Passport, considering that by using that all your concerns about the ID provider deciding to simply shut down come back into the picture.
Well, you're right. But OpenID hasn't improved on Passport, and it's much harder to use, so there's really no point to it until it fixes at least one of those.
I'd also prefer to log in normally than to use Passport, but if there was a choice between the two then Passport is the obvious pick.
I believe you're right, that all three pieces need to up and running at the time of the login. However, while technically all three do store some data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything other than the public OpenID portion
No, the site I'm trying to log in to knows a crapload about me: all the data I've provided it, and data that I still want access to even if my OpenID provider has issues. I'd rather just log in directly so I don't have to rely on OpenID to get to my data, which is why I refuse to use sites which don't provide that option. (Like StackOverflow, for example.)
I was addressing your concerns about the OpenID provider closing shop. If that happens and you've set up delegation, you simply delegate to a different provider, and you're back in business. No need to worry about being locked out of your account, because you have control.... Unless it's your "delegate" server who's out of commission, then you're in the same boat as if you didn't have one in the first place.
But my by far overwhelming concern for this whole concept is that it's FAR too difficult for a normal, regular, non-geek to use. Ignoring all the technical flaws, Passport is each and OpenID is hard.
OpenID is simply poorly-implemented. It's only useful for sites that store absolutely no data whatsoever; if the site stores data, OpenID actually makes the situation worse by having multiple web servers hold the data hostage. Sadly, they haven't even slightly improved on the Microsoft Passport system they were inspired from.
Also see this posting from yesterday's article where I outline how OpenID is worse than traditional logins, and their "solution" for that problem actually makes things worse, not better:
But this [wikipedia.org] is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa
Uh, [citation needed]? The very article you point to says they've never actually been used outside of lab environments. How could something that's never been used be causing famines?
You have to prove those people would be alive had the US not invaded. Otherwise, it's a completely false and intellectually dishonest comparison.
The simple fact of the matter is that Saddam was a mass murderer. That's not to say "the war killed less than Saddam would have," because I simply don't know that. But you can't pretend that Iraq was nothing but sunshine and roses and children on swing sets, either.
Well, considering none of the knock-off phones listed actually HAVE Android installed, hopefully he won't see many purchases. Still, shame for using an affiliate link and not even pointing to the products you're talking about.
That's getting to a solution, but it's still far too difficult for the average person to do. And, if I'm understanding correctly, it actually makes your data held by THREE servers now:
1) The server you're trying to log into 2) The server hosting your "delegation" page 3) The server providing the OpenID
Someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.
OpenID's mission is to have one single login for every single website out there. So far, it was doing great. Now, I want to check my hotmail with my (pre-existing) OpenID. No luck. Unless you start at Windows Live and move to the rest of the OpenID sites, you are no closer to achieving OpenID's goal and vision. This is a ridiculous mangling of a great idea.
The idea is bad in the first place. The fact that numerous large.coms are OpenID *providers* but don't accept OpenIDs from other providers is only a symptom of the problem. I started thinking about this when reading suggestions for the new StackOverflow.com programming site.
The problem is that when you use OpenID to log in to a website, you now rely on two sites to be up and running: the OpenID provider, and the site you're logging on to. If your OpenID provider decides OpenID isn't worth their time and cancels the service, you're SOL-- there's no way to log on to the site, and any data you've put on that site is lost forever.
There's no way to "transfer" an OpenID between different providers, nor is there any way to "combine" multiple OpenIDs into a single OpenID (for example, combining LiveJournal's and Yahoo's so you can log on to the site with either.) Without that functionality, my data is being held BOTH by the site I'm entering it into AND by Yahoo/LiveJournal/whatever.
The top suggestion for StackOverflow.com is to allow people to entire multiple OpenIDs for a single account, in case one of their OpenID providers goes down. I pointed out that this is a terrible idea, because knowing human nature, nobody will bother to enter a second OpenID until the first fails, and once the first fails they can't authenticate to enter the second anyway. If StackOverflow.com just had its own login system, it would avoid all these OpenID-related issues.
Don't get me wrong, OpenID is great for sites where you want to authenticate, but you won't be storing any data on the site. For example, reading an article at the New York Times. But for any application where you're storing data, tying it to OpenID is a huge mistake.
Anyway, the saddest thing is that Microsoft's Passport lets you merge IDs, so it's actually better-implemented than OpenID.
(P.S. I know you can buy a Dreamhost account and a domain name and become your own OpenID provider which resolves all these issues. But if you want people to use the system, you need to make it usable by normal, average human beings. OpenID isn't.)
Hell, I switched my main computer from OS X to Vista, and damned if I can figure out how to open.pages files on Windows at all. I can't open files I created 10 months ago, much less 10 years.:)
Of course the real question is why Apple won't make a viewer or conversion utility. Bastards. Oh well, it's nothing too critical, just some creative writing.
IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4. Until that problem is fixed, it won't be adopted. Because that problem exists, you can confidently say the people who designed IPv6 had NO FUCKING CLUE what they were doing.
I mean, Vista is 95% compatible with XP and it's having adopting issues. IPv6 is 0% compatible with IPv4, so do the math.
You could easily modify the Wiki software to allow people to "own" content they created, and approve/disapprove of changes to it. For instance, obviously nobody should "own" the article Arcade Games, but you could "own" Blakey Rat's Review of Asteroids. Of course the trick there is determining which articles should be owned, and which should be public... maybe editorial decree?
Gee, could it be the random insult to everybody in North America? Sounds like a troll to me.
And it makes no damn sense... even if it was true that there were no GSM phones in the US before the iPhone (it's not), are we being insulted because our cellphones don't interfere with speakers? That has to be the worst insult in history.
Only if you're a veteran user of 97-2003 *and* a person who hates change, regardless of whether it's positive or negative change.
Personally, as a veteran user of 97-2003, I love 2007. The real-time previews of formatting alone are worth the cost of entry. My only minor gripe is that it took me a big to find the Print and File options the first time I used it.
It's not "geeks" that oppose the ribbon, it's "crotchety grumps who hate change." It just so happens that Slashdot includes both groups, and there's a lot of overlap.
Anybody who's used the ribbon longer than a few days realizes that at worst it's a lateral move, and at best it's a huge improvement over previous versions of Office.
In my mind, the fact that Microsoft is actively experimenting and improving the UI of one of the most popular software products in the world only demonstrates how far ahead it is over the competition. In a normal competitive market, it would be the smaller players like OpenOffice making the drastic changes to get an edge... but no, OO's UI has been stagnant since 1.0.
Frontpage turned into Expression Web, which is the best HTML editor on the market. (IMHO, at least.) Of course, it had basically been rewritten from scratch by that point, but still don't let the Frontpage fiasco stop you from trying Expression Web.
1) If everybody solved their own problems in the way you prefer and grew from the experience, while that might be a great thing to happen, it also means that those problems wouldn't ever get solved in a permanent manner. People *need* to point out problems so that those interested in improving the technology know what to work on. Frankly, after reading your long explanation, I'm yet to be convinced it answers my question, "why should people *have* to learn where the file is?"
Learning how computers organize files, while it is personal development, is not the type people generally care about. It's more the type people sigh and get through simply because they have to to complete their work. I mean, you're presenting this as if learning the hierarchical file system is equivalent to, say, learning to play the guitar. It's not; people *want* to learn to play the guitar, it's fun, it helps you be popular at parties, etc.
2) This is even stranger, since you point out the user's high level of arrogance: Not everybody is you.
Let me say that again, and in bold print, since it comes up again and again on Slashdot: Not everybody is you.
You see learning the file system as a great personal victory, but the vast majority of people see it as an annoyance that gets in the way of doing their actual task. I actually used to be in the first group, and now I'm in firmly the other. You're the minority, and in the matter the software should cater to the majority*. If Bob's an accountant, he'll benefit from not having to spend time on anything except accounting. It'll make his company more efficient, and his job more enjoyable.
If you're griping that we're a society surrounded by machinery, and there's no Daniel Boone-like self-reliance around, then I think you missed the boat on that one somewhere around 1850 or so. We've been specialized and mechanized a long, long time and, while you're nostalgia is undoubtedly strong, I highly doubt you want to go back to the days of subsistence farming. (Of course, even in 1850 there were specialized tasks-- blacksmiths, candle-makers, merchants. You'd need to go back millennia to find what you're after.)
*) Why? Because the minority who care about the exact layout of files on disk are capable of configuring the software to get that information; the majority who do not care are most likely also not capable of finding it. It's the same argument for why Microsoft got rid of telnet.exe in Vista: people who know what telnet.exe is and does are invariably able to use the Add/Remove Windows Components to install it if they really want it, or to download something else. The opposite does not apply.
Also, to educate users about "sleep mode." Because, really, the only reason this is an issue at all is that so many people think they have to shut down their laptops every single time they close the lid, and reboot it every single time they open it.
It's a people-problem, not a technology-problem. Fix the people.
Well, handwriting recognition sucks on Linux. So the "obvious" Slashdot choice is no good to answer the question. Frankly, I think his XP Tablet is the best choice, unless Vista happens to run well (I doubt it will, but Vista has much better handwriting recognition.)
Maybe, but at least I'm not the one saying, "it's impossible! You shouldn't even try!!"
Criminy. Look, everything can be improved. Maybe we can do it without requiring strong AI through a more creative solution that you haven't thought of. I dislike your entire pessimistic attitude. If you ran the world, we'd still be driving Model T's-- I mean, it's crazy to think the automobile could possibly be improved in any way!
There's a dozen places to hear music online for free. Pandora, Yahoo whatever-cast, the 200 radio stations listed in iTunes. It makes sense if you're listening to something ONLY available on Sirius, but other than that it's just throwing money in the trash.
Sorry, I assumed since you had PartnerNet access you were a Microsoft Games employee. MS employees are designated, somewhat, by badge colors: Blue is full-time, and Orange is contractor. It was a lame joke.
Well, nobody says it had to be co-op, it could just be multiplayer. I learned a lot more about my colleagues at my last company from playing Call of Duty 2 at lunch than I ever would have during work hours.
That said, Xbox 360 has a decent co-op selection, although you're right that there's a lot of games that should have co-op but don't for whatever reason. The most popular co-op game we had before I left was Rainbow 6: Vegas.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they know about the data you've provided to them directly. That's the whole point of logging in; I didn't think I needed to spell that out. Let me revise my earlier statement: "While technically all three do store some login-related data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything related to your login other than the public OpenID portion"
What bothers me the most is that my data could be lost through no fault of my own, and no fault of the site storing the data. If Yahoo decides to stop being an OpenID provider, poof, suddenly that data's gone; it's not my fault, and it's not siteiloginto.com's fault, but it's still gone. I'd much, much prefer to just log on normally.
While I agree that OpenID probably isn't easy enough for non-geeks, at least not without hand-holding, I certainly wouldn't recommend a service like Passport, considering that by using that all your concerns about the ID provider deciding to simply shut down come back into the picture.
Well, you're right. But OpenID hasn't improved on Passport, and it's much harder to use, so there's really no point to it until it fixes at least one of those.
I'd also prefer to log in normally than to use Passport, but if there was a choice between the two then Passport is the obvious pick.
I believe you're right, that all three pieces need to up and running at the time of the login. However, while technically all three do store some data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything other than the public OpenID portion
No, the site I'm trying to log in to knows a crapload about me: all the data I've provided it, and data that I still want access to even if my OpenID provider has issues. I'd rather just log in directly so I don't have to rely on OpenID to get to my data, which is why I refuse to use sites which don't provide that option. (Like StackOverflow, for example.)
I was addressing your concerns about the OpenID provider closing shop. If that happens and you've set up delegation, you simply delegate to a different provider, and you're back in business. No need to worry about being locked out of your account, because you have control. ... Unless it's your "delegate" server who's out of commission, then you're in the same boat as if you didn't have one in the first place.
But my by far overwhelming concern for this whole concept is that it's FAR too difficult for a normal, regular, non-geek to use. Ignoring all the technical flaws, Passport is each and OpenID is hard.
And the number 1 feature request is to implement their own login system so people don't have to deal with OpenID:
http://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/16685
OpenID is simply poorly-implemented. It's only useful for sites that store absolutely no data whatsoever; if the site stores data, OpenID actually makes the situation worse by having multiple web servers hold the data hostage. Sadly, they haven't even slightly improved on the Microsoft Passport system they were inspired from.
Also see this posting from yesterday's article where I outline how OpenID is worse than traditional logins, and their "solution" for that problem actually makes things worse, not better:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1011619&cid=25556389
But this [wikipedia.org] is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa
Uh, [citation needed]? The very article you point to says they've never actually been used outside of lab environments. How could something that's never been used be causing famines?
You have to prove those people would be alive had the US not invaded. Otherwise, it's a completely false and intellectually dishonest comparison.
The simple fact of the matter is that Saddam was a mass murderer. That's not to say "the war killed less than Saddam would have," because I simply don't know that. But you can't pretend that Iraq was nothing but sunshine and roses and children on swing sets, either.
Well, considering none of the knock-off phones listed actually HAVE Android installed, hopefully he won't see many purchases. Still, shame for using an affiliate link and not even pointing to the products you're talking about.
That's getting to a solution, but it's still far too difficult for the average person to do. And, if I'm understanding correctly, it actually makes your data held by THREE servers now:
1) The server you're trying to log into
2) The server hosting your "delegation" page
3) The server providing the OpenID
Someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.
OpenID's mission is to have one single login for every single website out there. So far, it was doing great. Now, I want to check my hotmail with my (pre-existing) OpenID. No luck. Unless you start at Windows Live and move to the rest of the OpenID sites, you are no closer to achieving OpenID's goal and vision. This is a ridiculous mangling of a great idea.
The idea is bad in the first place. The fact that numerous large .coms are OpenID *providers* but don't accept OpenIDs from other providers is only a symptom of the problem. I started thinking about this when reading suggestions for the new StackOverflow.com programming site.
The problem is that when you use OpenID to log in to a website, you now rely on two sites to be up and running: the OpenID provider, and the site you're logging on to. If your OpenID provider decides OpenID isn't worth their time and cancels the service, you're SOL-- there's no way to log on to the site, and any data you've put on that site is lost forever.
There's no way to "transfer" an OpenID between different providers, nor is there any way to "combine" multiple OpenIDs into a single OpenID (for example, combining LiveJournal's and Yahoo's so you can log on to the site with either.) Without that functionality, my data is being held BOTH by the site I'm entering it into AND by Yahoo/LiveJournal/whatever.
The top suggestion for StackOverflow.com is to allow people to entire multiple OpenIDs for a single account, in case one of their OpenID providers goes down. I pointed out that this is a terrible idea, because knowing human nature, nobody will bother to enter a second OpenID until the first fails, and once the first fails they can't authenticate to enter the second anyway. If StackOverflow.com just had its own login system, it would avoid all these OpenID-related issues.
Don't get me wrong, OpenID is great for sites where you want to authenticate, but you won't be storing any data on the site. For example, reading an article at the New York Times. But for any application where you're storing data, tying it to OpenID is a huge mistake.
Anyway, the saddest thing is that Microsoft's Passport lets you merge IDs, so it's actually better-implemented than OpenID.
(P.S. I know you can buy a Dreamhost account and a domain name and become your own OpenID provider which resolves all these issues. But if you want people to use the system, you need to make it usable by normal, average human beings. OpenID isn't.)
You could assume I know how to use Pages.
Export doesn't do you any good when you don't have a Mac!
Hell, I switched my main computer from OS X to Vista, and damned if I can figure out how to open .pages files on Windows at all. I can't open files I created 10 months ago, much less 10 years. :)
Of course the real question is why Apple won't make a viewer or conversion utility. Bastards. Oh well, it's nothing too critical, just some creative writing.
IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4. Until that problem is fixed, it won't be adopted. Because that problem exists, you can confidently say the people who designed IPv6 had NO FUCKING CLUE what they were doing.
I mean, Vista is 95% compatible with XP and it's having adopting issues. IPv6 is 0% compatible with IPv4, so do the math.
You could easily modify the Wiki software to allow people to "own" content they created, and approve/disapprove of changes to it. For instance, obviously nobody should "own" the article Arcade Games, but you could "own" Blakey Rat's Review of Asteroids. Of course the trick there is determining which articles should be owned, and which should be public... maybe editorial decree?
Obligatory Bob the Angry Flower:
http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif
Gee, could it be the random insult to everybody in North America? Sounds like a troll to me.
And it makes no damn sense... even if it was true that there were no GSM phones in the US before the iPhone (it's not), are we being insulted because our cellphones don't interfere with speakers? That has to be the worst insult in history.
Only if you're a veteran user of 97-2003 *and* a person who hates change, regardless of whether it's positive or negative change.
Personally, as a veteran user of 97-2003, I love 2007. The real-time previews of formatting alone are worth the cost of entry. My only minor gripe is that it took me a big to find the Print and File options the first time I used it.
It's not "geeks" that oppose the ribbon, it's "crotchety grumps who hate change." It just so happens that Slashdot includes both groups, and there's a lot of overlap.
Anybody who's used the ribbon longer than a few days realizes that at worst it's a lateral move, and at best it's a huge improvement over previous versions of Office.
In my mind, the fact that Microsoft is actively experimenting and improving the UI of one of the most popular software products in the world only demonstrates how far ahead it is over the competition. In a normal competitive market, it would be the smaller players like OpenOffice making the drastic changes to get an edge... but no, OO's UI has been stagnant since 1.0.
Frontpage turned into Expression Web, which is the best HTML editor on the market. (IMHO, at least.) Of course, it had basically been rewritten from scratch by that point, but still don't let the Frontpage fiasco stop you from trying Expression Web.
I think you're missing two points here:
1) If everybody solved their own problems in the way you prefer and grew from the experience, while that might be a great thing to happen, it also means that those problems wouldn't ever get solved in a permanent manner. People *need* to point out problems so that those interested in improving the technology know what to work on. Frankly, after reading your long explanation, I'm yet to be convinced it answers my question, "why should people *have* to learn where the file is?"
Learning how computers organize files, while it is personal development, is not the type people generally care about. It's more the type people sigh and get through simply because they have to to complete their work. I mean, you're presenting this as if learning the hierarchical file system is equivalent to, say, learning to play the guitar. It's not; people *want* to learn to play the guitar, it's fun, it helps you be popular at parties, etc.
2) This is even stranger, since you point out the user's high level of arrogance: Not everybody is you.
Let me say that again, and in bold print, since it comes up again and again on Slashdot: Not everybody is you.
You see learning the file system as a great personal victory, but the vast majority of people see it as an annoyance that gets in the way of doing their actual task. I actually used to be in the first group, and now I'm in firmly the other. You're the minority, and in the matter the software should cater to the majority*. If Bob's an accountant, he'll benefit from not having to spend time on anything except accounting. It'll make his company more efficient, and his job more enjoyable.
If you're griping that we're a society surrounded by machinery, and there's no Daniel Boone-like self-reliance around, then I think you missed the boat on that one somewhere around 1850 or so. We've been specialized and mechanized a long, long time and, while you're nostalgia is undoubtedly strong, I highly doubt you want to go back to the days of subsistence farming. (Of course, even in 1850 there were specialized tasks-- blacksmiths, candle-makers, merchants. You'd need to go back millennia to find what you're after.)
*) Why? Because the minority who care about the exact layout of files on disk are capable of configuring the software to get that information; the majority who do not care are most likely also not capable of finding it. It's the same argument for why Microsoft got rid of telnet.exe in Vista: people who know what telnet.exe is and does are invariably able to use the Add/Remove Windows Components to install it if they really want it, or to download something else. The opposite does not apply.
Also, to educate users about "sleep mode." Because, really, the only reason this is an issue at all is that so many people think they have to shut down their laptops every single time they close the lid, and reboot it every single time they open it.
It's a people-problem, not a technology-problem. Fix the people.
Well, handwriting recognition sucks on Linux. So the "obvious" Slashdot choice is no good to answer the question. Frankly, I think his XP Tablet is the best choice, unless Vista happens to run well (I doubt it will, but Vista has much better handwriting recognition.)
Maybe, but at least I'm not the one saying, "it's impossible! You shouldn't even try!!"
Criminy. Look, everything can be improved. Maybe we can do it without requiring strong AI through a more creative solution that you haven't thought of. I dislike your entire pessimistic attitude. If you ran the world, we'd still be driving Model T's-- I mean, it's crazy to think the automobile could possibly be improved in any way!
There's a dozen places to hear music online for free. Pandora, Yahoo whatever-cast, the 200 radio stations listed in iTunes. It makes sense if you're listening to something ONLY available on Sirius, but other than that it's just throwing money in the trash.
Sorry, I assumed since you had PartnerNet access you were a Microsoft Games employee. MS employees are designated, somewhat, by badge colors: Blue is full-time, and Orange is contractor. It was a lame joke.
Well, nobody says it had to be co-op, it could just be multiplayer. I learned a lot more about my colleagues at my last company from playing Call of Duty 2 at lunch than I ever would have during work hours.
That said, Xbox 360 has a decent co-op selection, although you're right that there's a lot of games that should have co-op but don't for whatever reason. The most popular co-op game we had before I left was Rainbow 6: Vegas.
Well, I've been using it for over 4 years, and I've never seen that, so I'm not making any marks against Symantec on that one.