darning with faint praise
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jul 15, 2007 1:22 PM EDT |
This is a pretty funny article. At least he didn't say "and it has a nice personality!" |
| tracyanne Jul 15, 2007 2:01 PM EDT |
For the most part those 5 things a true. But Microsoft does one thing really well with their Windows OS that Linux still can't do and that's alienate people. I'm in the process of setting up a dual boot system for a lady, it's not finished because Microsoft Windows with it's awe inspiring WGA has decide that her legal copy of Windows is no longer legal (I'm coming across this more often, CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT: maybe Microsoft are causing WIN XP WGA to flag Win XP as illigal to drive Vista Sales). Actually the illegal Windows install was the reason I was asked to look at the computer in the first place, and I would have installed pure Mandriva Linux, except the lady has lots of Windows games she like to play. So now it looks like she is going to have to buy a copy of Windows, She doesn't want Vista, but I've warned her it may be her only choice, but she will try to find a copy of XP (Home or Pro). They her husband and her have asked me to set up a dual boot system for her husband and a file server running Linux as well, they have a lot of media. |
| helios Jul 15, 2007 5:22 PM EDT |
Look at the lead-in to this story...who proofed this? I am guessing Mr. Nobody. Let's take a look at it: Everyone loves to bash Windows, and for the most part, there’s good reason to. With questionable business practices and a massive amount of bugs found inside the OS, sometimes it’s a wonder that Windows is as popular as it is. With that being said, in any honest debate, you have to give credit where credit is due, and with over 90% of the market share, Microsoft is surely due a little credit. Credit isn't due for any reason stated above. MS has 90 percent market share due to being in the right place at the right time. Period. Here...You will see this again, so get all the eye-rolling over now. It is still a valid point: Why should a person have to purchase software in order to insure the software they've already purchased both works and is protected? If anyone produced a product like this anywhere in the world, or with any other commodity, it wouldn't last a week. The Windows phenomenon is simply what I call the Out-of-the-box paradox. More simply, we are experiencing a global psychosis...the world-wide use of Windows as an operating system. This shall change shortly. h and yes, for those who have noticed. I'm back. What a long, strange trip it's been. |
| gus3 Jul 15, 2007 5:34 PM EDT |
tuxchick: I'm sure *you* have far more than a "nice personality." For one, you're brainy. ;-) |
| azerthoth Jul 15, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
WB helios |
| tracyanne Jul 15, 2007 6:11 PM EDT |
Actually I can't see how windows can have 90% Market share (and we are talking desktop here) because if Apple has 10% and Linux has 5% then Microsoft windows has 85% market share. |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 6:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:and yes, for those who have noticedNice to see you are back. I was sort of worried why you haven't been posting and afraid to ask. Welcome back. |
| tracyanne Jul 15, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
@helios: So where have you been? |
| NoDough Jul 16, 2007 5:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:...if Apple has 10% and Linux has 5% then Microsoft windows has 85% market share. [sarcasm] Tracy, Tracy, Tracy. Surely you've heard of new math. Well, this is Microsoft math. Scenerio 1) A consumer purchases a new PC with Windows pre-installed. They wipe the drive and install a downloaded copy of Linux. MSMath: Physical PCs - 1 Windows desktops - 1 Linux desktops - 0 Scenerio 2) A consumer decides to upgrade their PC, which was purchased with Windows 2000, to Windows XP or Windows Vista. MSMath: Physical PCs - 1 Windows desktops - 2 Scenerio 3) A large company enrolls in Microsoft's open licensing program, purchasing a block of 1000 seats. The company then purchases 1000 PCs which, of course, come with Windows pre-installed. MSMath: Physical PCs - 1,000 Windows desktops - 2,000 Scenerio 4) A computer company signs a contract with MS agreeing to pay 1 license per PC sold, regardless of what operating system is installed on that PC. The company ships 8000 Windows PCs and 2000 Linux PCs. MSMath: Physical PCs - 10,000 Windows desktops - 10,000 Linux desktops - 2,000 So you see, Microsoft could rightfully claim well over 100% of the desktop market, but they realized that would embarrass Linux and Mac. So they are being merciful by claiming only 90%. [/sarcasm] |
| number6x Jul 16, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
Happy de-FUDding? OK, I'll take a crack at it... 1. Games. I'll give him this. Hard core computer game players tend to pick Windows. Linux has plenty of games for my needs from solitaire and minesweeper, to Tux Racer and pingus, Linux has more than enough. My kids love circus Linux and frozen buble. Of course, I don't spend much time playing games so my needs are not too great. The last FPS type game I ever played was either Doom II, or Duke Nukem. I won't even discuss things like Wine and Cedega in this section (see #2 below) because If you are seriously into games you should probably own a console instead of counting on Wine or Windows. When I walk down the aisle at the local computer store and see the vast array computer games for Windows, I agree with this blogger that Windows is the OS for you if what you want to do is play games :) 2. Software Availability. The blogger kind of narrows the argument here to software you might get included when you buy something like a Barbie for your kids. Face it there are thousands of quality software titles available for Linux at the click of a mouse. Windows, especially Vista cannot hold a candle to Linux in the area of software availability. There are usually several more choices in any given category in the Linux world that in the Windows world. Oh yeah, the Linux stuff is usually free for you to download and use, saving you hundreds of dollars over the lifetime of the computer. If your daughter wants to play the game on the disk that shipped with her Barbie, now I would suggest Wine. First get a glass. A nice Merlot or Cabernet. Then install wine via your distro's software management tools. They really have to constrain these arguments to make the point, but it just gets silly then. I can find cases where I can only do what I want on Linux or BSD and not Windows, and no one can beat Text Mate on a Mac as a programmer's editor. There will always be a utility of function on one OS that is implemented better than on others. You are just engaging in tit for tat at this point. Besides the hundreds of dollars you will save by utilizing the vast amount of freely available Linux software will pay for the game console needed up in point # 1. 3. Reliability. Since Windows crashes so often, its built to crash, and everyone acts like it will crash any second so this is better? Three words... Journaling File System 'nuff said 4. Business integration. This blogger rebuts his own argument better than I ever could. Basically the argument is: "I don't really know much about Linux and Mac enterprise solutions, but I've seen Windows and that's easy enough" If you don't know enough to compare them, then don't compare them. Just drop the point. 5. Filesharing. Samba is an implementation of the Microsoft SMB protocols that allows file sharing for numerous SMB/CIFS clients. I think it dates back to the early nineties. Active Directory is relatively new and is not SMB. SMB and Active Directory are some of those closed proprietary things that do not play well with others. Samba helps Windows by holding its hand and allowing files squirreled away on Windows shares to actually be available across a wider network. This isn't exactly Tom Cruise helping Dustin Hoffman emerge from a cocoon, but close. Windows networking is a small hobbled thing compared to Linux, and Unix in general. This is an argument The blogger makes out of ignorance. If they knew more about computer networking and not just about Microsoft networking, they would not make this point because they would know how silly it was. So summing things up: #3,# 4, and #5 are not really true and are arguments probably made out of the blogger's ignorance. This is especially true of point # 4 where the blogger admits they really don't know about Linux and Mac office solutions. #2 is just absurd. They really have to narrow down the definition of 'availability' to make this argument. #1 is correct. Windows is the OS for people who want to play games. |
| tuxchick Jul 16, 2007 8:15 AM EDT |
"2. Software Availability. The blogger kind of narrows the argument here to software you might get included when you buy something like a Barbie for your kids. " That's not a plus anyway- Mattel has gotten in trouble a number of times for exploiting children by getting them to divulge personal information, and by sneaking spyware into its products. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 8:37 AM EDT |
>#2 is just absurd. They really have to narrow down the definition of 'availability' to make this argument. Seriously? I'll remember that the next time I try to install GoldMine or Act or QuickBooks or TurboTax or PhotoShop or 3D Home Architect or Magic ScreenWriter or Family Tree Maker or ProTools or Peachtree Pro (Hey! that's 2 accounting programs so far!) and AutoCad and FinalCut Pro etc, etc, etc, etc. There's a lot of great free software. I use very little else. #2, however, remains a significant edge for Windows, especially in terms of the software that people want. |
| NoDough Jul 16, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
The author labeled #3 as "Reliability" when, I believe, he actually meant "Recoverability". Still not much of an argument, though. The best recovery program is the one you never have to use. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
>Still not much of an argument, though. The best recovery program is the one you never have to use. Y'know, there's a substantial school of thought that would disagree with you mightily. IBM, for example, has done a lot of work on self-healing networks. The ideas is that, as systems get more and more complex, complete reliability borders on impossible to ensure. The real road to reliability might well be an "immune system" that repairs damage as soon as it happens. |
| oszen Jul 16, 2007 9:44 AM EDT |
[The week has just begun and already there's a candidate for next week's FUD of the week. Happy deFUDding! — Sander] Oh, come on guys... is that any way to treat an old friend? http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/62799/index.html Really though, thanks for linking to my article and making it "Today's Big Story"! That's great! I was really hoping that the article would stimulate some conversation. There's been some really good points made, and I've learned a few things as well. I'm still working on integrating the old videos from osvids (what's left anyway), and I'm recruiting writers to make sure oszen has great content. It's been a long vacation from the community, and it's good to be back. |
| NoDough Jul 16, 2007 9:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:IBM, for example, has done a lot of work on self-healing networks.It's been a few years since I've heard anything from IBM concerning these. IIRC the original approach was to quarantine the offending service and/or node. Anyone know if this is still (or ever was) the approach? |
| number6x Jul 16, 2007 11:17 AM EDT |
dino, You just love to disagree don't you? I called it a useless tit for tat style argument. The blog's argument is: There's software available only for Windows (a true statement). Therefore Linux is not as good as Windows(the conclusion drawn from the statement above). It is an absurd argument. Why? Just flesh out the true statement with some more. There's software available only for Windows. There's software available only for Linux. There's software available only for Macs. Therefore Linux is not as good as Windows The conclusion has nothing to do with the statements above. Besides, using Linux does not mean that you have to give up Windows. With Linux you get your cake (Linux), you get to eat it (Freedom), and you get to clean up the dirty dishes afterwords (Windows). If you are a Mac user, you can probably hire a maid to do the dishes. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 11:30 AM EDT |
6x - When you are dishonest, or just simply wrong, it is reasonable to expect an argument. Look at your reply to me : You have to make up your own argument in order to support yourself, and you don't even fare that well when you get to set the rules. The author does not claim that Windows is better than Linux. He states what should be obvious to anyone who has had to live around Windows users -- or, gosh -- just tried to buy a wireless card without having to trudge through the minutia of what version of what dongle has what version of what chip: For most people, getting the software they want is easier for Windows than it is for Linux. In some cases, it's not even a matter of easier, it's a matter of possible vs impossible. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. In my case, I do without some things. Not everybody wants to do that. Not everybody can do that. Added in an edit: Think of East Germany after the Berlin wall fell down. Before, E. Germans could buy Trabants and Wartburgs. West Germans had cars, East Germans had cars. You could argue that everything was equal, that there was no reason to prefer Volkswagens and Audis and Mercedes's and Toyotas, etc to Trabants and Wartburgs. You might even believe yourself when you said it, but, given the chance, East Germans started buying those VWs, etc. |
| jdixon Jul 16, 2007 11:36 AM EDT |
> For most people, getting the software they want is easier for Windows than it is for Linux. In some cases, it's not even a matter of easier, it's a matter of possible vs impossible. Yes, which gives him two really valid points: Games and software availability. The others are, IMO, not really valid. Of course, #1 (games) is really a subset of #2 (software availability), not a separate issue. |
| number6x Jul 16, 2007 12:20 PM EDT |
dino, I write code. When I install Linux I can usually start working right away. There are almost always three or four programming languages available in a Linux installation by default. A fresh install of Windows is next to useless for me. For me Windows is a shiny new Wartburg, but worse. It has no wheels and no transmission. I can pay through the nose for the missing parts, or go to the black market. Given the choice I would have gone with the car produced by the Free enterprise, Open Markets of the West just as I choose the product of the Free and Open markets of software production. For me Windows is the product of the glorious 5 year plan produced by the minds of the unquestionable leaders of the one true OS. Don't worry, each new 5 year plan will solve all of the faults of the previous one. For me, and many others Windows has not matched the software availability of Linux for a long time. YMMV. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 12:32 PM EDT |
>Of course, #1 (games) is really a subset of #2 (software availability), not a separate issue. absolutely. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 12:35 PM EDT |
6x - Yup, exactly. Graphics/video/music folks tend to be the same way about Macs. I don't use Windows, but I have had occasional bouts of Mac envy for its multimedia production capabilities. Most people, however, don't code. Most people also don't do much in the way of multimedia production. The vast array of software for Windows that people know about and want to use remains an advantage. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
6x - When you are dishonest, or just simply wrong, it is reasonable to expect an argument. Look at your reply to me : You have to make up your own argument in order to support yourself, and you don't even fare that well when you get to set the rules. The author does not claim that Windows is better than Linux. He states what should be obvious to anyone who has had to live around Windows users -- or, gosh -- just tried to buy a wireless card without having to trudge through the minutia of what version of what dongle has what version of what chip: For most people, getting the software they want is easier for Windows than it is for Linux. In some cases, it's not even a matter of easier, it's a matter of possible vs impossible. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. In my case, I do without some things. Not everybody wants to do that. Not everybody can do that. |
| number6x Jul 16, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
dino, I'm not following you with this 'dishonesty' comment, and all this talk about trying to buy a wireless card. What does that have to do with the author's point #2? For point number 2 the author said: Quoting:"Software Availability: This is a touchy subject, and one that is often misunderstood by all sides involved. The truth of the matter is, when someone buys something that comes with software, (think your kids latest Barbie), that software is going to run on Windows. This is a trend that I’m hoping we’ll see less and less of. I’ve been a Mac user for years, there’s been several times when I had some obscure software that I needed for something that only ran on Windows." They talk about software that comes with barbies as their measure of software availability. I think it is absurd to do so. You can have a valid argument with wireless card drivers, or with business software like quick books, but the author's barbie driven argument is bunkum. I have not been criticizing your arguments, but the author's. I think they are making an absurd argument. Especially because they are leaving out the "Little People" software that shipped in a box of honey nut cheerios a few years ago. I had to install Wine to get it to run for my kids. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 16, 2007 1:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:Oh, come on guys... is that any way to treat an old friend? Really though, thanks for linking to my article and making it "Today's Big Story"! Just because you've been around, doesn't mean that you can't have your facts wrong. We've all been off at one time or another :-) The "Today's Big Story" happens automagically. People just read your article a lot. Quoting:#1 is correct. Windows is the OS for people who want to play games. And unfortunately there's no end in sight. For various reasons. 1) MS has been pretty successful at discouraging OpenGL use by refusing to deliver a driver that can so OpenGL 1.2 or better. There's a lot of hackwork involved in getting OpenGL 1.2+ (notably 2.0) functionality in your game. And like it or not, DirectX isn't as bad as say, Vista or Office 11 or the usual crocks that come our of Redmond. It's a reasonable library if you can stomach the COM model. 2) Lead times on games are very long. It's only in the last year or so that Linux for the generic end-user has really picked up steam. A games producer considering cross-platform games will most likely have done so only recently because we're now starting to get the numbers to make it interesting. Which means that there should be games shipping in about 3-4 years. Making blockbuster Hollywood movies is faster than making AAA games. 3) Libraries. A lot of game companies have amassed lots of code that can't be ported easily. Or they have sophisticated 3D engines that have been in development for years and would be too costly to abandon. Take the EA sports series as an example. A new game every year but the same engine. Just a year's worth of spit-polish on it. One of the few big names that "gets it" is ID software. But don't count on the big names to bring games to the Linux desktops. Look to the start-ups. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 1:21 PM EDT |
6x - >The truth of the matter is, when someone buys something that comes with software, (think your kids latest Barbie) Hmmm...Think maybe they were trying to make the case by using an "out-there" example? The author certainly didn't mean that very many people buy PCs so they can use the software that came with a Barbie doll. For that matter, my wireless dongle isn't much different from that Barbie. It's a piece of hardware that comes with Windows software that isn't available for Linux. I got screwed because I thought I had managed to score one revision, but actually ended up with another. Hmmm...What else comes to mind? My youngest daughter's very-cheapie digital camera, my middle daughter's toy-ish video camera/digital camera, my wife's iPods. These are all things that either don't work with Linux or don't work as fully or as well with Linux. One disclaimer on the iPods: because of the way they are done (much gnashing of teeth) I don't consider an iPod to be fully functional without iTunes. That's me. You may differ. |
| number6x Jul 16, 2007 1:35 PM EDT |
It could be made into a good point for the author, but it would take some work. But overall the conclusion of the blog post, for me anyway, is that Windows is better than Linux for people who want to play games. I guess more serious folks should stick with things like Linux. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 1:37 PM EDT |
>But overall the conclusion of the blog post, for me anyway, is that Windows is better than Linux for people who want to play games. That's probably fair, though, IMHO, it depends on the kind of games you like. |
| tracyanne Jul 16, 2007 1:51 PM EDT |
The thing is, these things are mostly true. 1. Games: Without question : yes there are some high quality games for Linux, most are pretty ordinary, and as one person who plays windows oriented games, commented "they look old". Most people don't play the big name games, most people play games from companies like PopCap. So while ID may have some big name games released for Linux. Almost every person I meet doesn't want the big name games. 2. Software Availability: For the most part true. Quicken, Quickbooks, several home tax applications I've come across here in Australia, for a start, these are huge roadblocks. WINE is not the answer... yet. Second you can walk into any retail computer shop and there are shelves of applications, do you see any there for Linux?.... No. So while there may well be many multiples of choices for Linux software a) it's not known about by the general public b) there are many applications that aren't available on Linux eg Kodak have a photo processing application that allows the user to order prints on line, it won't run on Linux - try selling someone who hased that application on GTKam or digiKam, as good as they are they don't deliver the functionality that windows users expect. 3. Reliability: I have never experienced a crash that my Linux box could nbot recover from, I have experienced and seen on many occassions crashes that Windows cannot. In every case the Linux crash was from external factors eg Power failure. Windows crahes were from both internal and external factors. My boss had an issue where a faulty power supply kept crashing his windows computer. After fixing the hardware problem the computer still crahed, it turns out the registry had been corrupted during the earlier crashes. 4. Business Integration: For the most part he's right. This is and was a deliberate strategy Microsoft implimented almost from the get go, and third party applications are developed to integrate into Microsoft's basic packages like Office. My Boss can go out and buy multiple thrid party applications that integrate tightly into Visual Studio, for example. I spend a lot of my time searching for FOSS examples but I don't see that sort of integration in the FOSS world. Yes there are some, but they seem like Linux/FOSS islands to Windows oriented continents. 5. Filesharing: The bloke obviously has no idea what he's talking about. |
| gus3 Jul 16, 2007 10:25 PM EDT |
tracyanne: "you can walk into any retail computer shop and there are shelves of applications, do you see any there for Linux?" No, because the ones Linux users typically use are downloaded from a website. OpenOffice.org, GNOME, KDE, Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey... need I say more? "My Boss can go out and buy multiple third party applications that integrate tightly into Visual Studio, for example. I spend a lot of my time searching for FOSS examples but I don't see that sort of integration in the FOSS world. Yes there are some, but they seem like Linux/FOSS islands to Windows oriented continents." That's because FOSS developers regard that kind of tight integration as dangerous. As an example from the FOSS side, how secure are Firefox add-ons? They are totally integrated into Firefox; how much information are they gathering and sending somewhere else? When was the last time someone actually examined the source code and gave it a stamp of approval? Windows users are notorious for clicking on things they shouldn't, whether in email or in a "This requires admin privileges" dialog box. Only recently has Microsoft worked to secure the desktop, where the *nix world has had some sort of privileges from the beginning. This affects usability, as you show in your third point (reliability): If the OS does too little to protect itself, it becomes the single point of failure. You can have the best applications in the world, but one trojan downloaded by an ignorant, or careless, or arrogant user can bring the whole thing into a vegetative state. The protections in Linux may not be perfect, but they sure as heck weren't glued on by clueless marketing departments. |
| tracyanne Jul 17, 2007 2:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:No, because the ones Linux users typically use are downloaded from a website. OpenOffice.org, GNOME, KDE, Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey... need I say more? Yes you do. because, with few exceptions, these are all available for Windows as well, also downloadable. I think you miss the point. Yes there are many wonderful applications for Linux, but nobody knows they exist. In addition Quicken, Quickbooks, several home tax applications I've come across here in Australia, for a start, these are huge roadblocks, I can't convince any business person to adopt Linux, because these are not available for Linux. Quoting:That's because FOSS developers regard that kind of tight integration as dangerous. That sort of integration is touted as a plus in those FOSS application stacks where it exists. |
| dinotrac Jul 17, 2007 3:58 AM EDT |
>That sort of integration is touted as a plus in those FOSS application stacks where it exists. Gus3 is confusing OS vulnerabilities with user-level application integration. The former is a no-no, one that Windows is roundly guilty of. The latter is a major plus for businesses that need reliable operations -- and reliable data. Windows, or, more accurately, the business applications for it, definitely have a big advantage in that department, but it's not 100-0. I recently was peripherally involved on a small business migration QuickBooks + a seperate (not integrated) inventory tracker + a few manual process to OpenMFG (not FOSS, btw) with a Linux backend. Much grief ensued, though not from failures in the new software. The new software, by virtue of integrating previously separate activities and enforcing "do it the right way" made some, ummmm, deficiencies in the former processes painfully obvious. Integration -- tight interoperability, sharing the same core for the same functionality, not replicating the same or tied data so that you don't get different results for the same thing -- is good. |
| gus3 Jul 17, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
Quick replies, as work time approaches: tracyanne: I said "typically." The apps/desktops I named are the ones *typically* used by Linux users. When you go to Windows, their share drops like a rock (except maybe Firefox). Windows users, especially in the small business world, still think they need to buy their software off a shelf in a building. dinotrac: A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and it affects its entire container. If your data's wiped, or stolen first and then wiped, it doesn't matter whether the exploit used a hole in the OS, in the GUI, or in an application. With the pathological lack of secure programming practices, I still claim it's better to go with an OS that hasn't tacked on security as an afterthought to satisfy the PR people. (Add obligatory "many eyes" reference here.) |
| dinotrac Jul 17, 2007 10:20 AM EDT |
>With the pathological lack of secure programming practices, I still claim it's better to go with an OS that hasn't tacked on security as an afterthought to satisfy the PR people. I agree completely. At the same time, when you gotta do business, you gotta do business. |
| gus3 Jul 17, 2007 10:23 AM EDT |
OT, but I really need to ask this: Where can I find a tutorial on this site for the "quote" tricks (like tracyanne's above) and the other text formatting allowed? I've looked, hard, and either I'm blind, or it just isn't there. OK, off to work. |
| NoDough Jul 17, 2007 12:14 PM EDT |
To begin a quote use [quote] To end a quote use [/qu ote] but without a space between the u and o. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 17, 2007 1:37 PM EDT |
Yup. For the rest, basic HTML is allowed (bold, italics, etcetera). URLs are automatically converted so just paste it in. No need for markup. |
| Aladdin_Sane Jul 17, 2007 1:42 PM EDT |
>>For the rest, basic HTML is allowed (bold, italics, etcetera). URLs are automatically converted so just paste it in. No need for markup. gus3's question has been asked before. Would it not make sense to put this summary at the bottom of the reply box, for reference? |
| tracyanne Jul 17, 2007 1:58 PM EDT |
I only found out by accident that the that [ ] notation worked. I used it out of force of habit from using it elsewhere. So an some help text explaining what can be used would be good. |
| dinotrac Jul 17, 2007 1:59 PM EDT |
Quoting: Would it not make sense to put this summary at the bottom of the reply box, for reference? Come on, now! You do that and many of us won't be able to authoritatively answer anything! |
| gus3 Jul 17, 2007 8:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:Come on, now! You do that and many of us won't be able to authoritatively answer anything! How would that change anything? This is teh Intar-Web. Hey, that quote thingy works! ;-) |
| gus3 Jul 17, 2007 8:37 PM EDT |
Thanks for the tips, I'll remember those. |
| dinotrac Jul 18, 2007 3:11 AM EDT |
>How would that change anything? This is teh Intar-Web. I meant that some of us don't know very much. Explaining quotes is about our only chance to be heros. Take that away, and what's left? |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 18, 2007 12:43 PM EDT |
This morning I went to the dentist for a checkup. They have a relatively new computer system, no more paper "paperwork", everything is recorded in computer forms. Ok, nothing surprising about that. However, while I'm sitting there getting my gum-depth measured, the hygenist says, "What's that? What am I supposed to do with that? Wait a moment." and she goes out to find someone who can tell her what to do. They came back, and the other hygenist says, "Just cancel those. They come up constantly telling you about software updates and such, just cancel." Turns out, sure enough, Windows XP is getting in the way. So there is one thing Windows does far, far better than Linux: It gets in the way. I started laughing, and gave them my "Linux" business card on the way out. |
| tracyanne Jul 18, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:They come up constantly telling you about software updates and such, just cancel." And if auto update is set on, and it does an update, it will nag you to reboot, and the reboot message is very insistent. |
| jrm Jul 18, 2007 1:53 PM EDT |
> the reboot message is very insistent. Oh yeah. Windows has a version of cron that uses artificial intelligence to know when you're working on deadline for one of your largest customers. Then it slows the processor down to half speed while it "updates", and it escalates to giving you these incessant popup messages to reboot. It's like a video game... you can hardly close them as fast as they pop up again. |
| tracyanne Jul 18, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
It wouldn't be so bad, having to reboot, if you got your applications back as you had them before you rebooted, but MS Windows forgets what you were doing and you have to reload all your applications. On my KDE desktop I can have KDE remember what applications I had open, and many of them will reload the files they had open at the time I shut the system down. Linux never requires a reboot, but if it did, I'd have most of my work back without having to lift a finger... or click a mouse button. On a Windows OS I have to reload avery application, then reload the files I had open, and hope I remembered to save before the reboot. |
| tuxchick Jul 18, 2007 2:47 PM EDT |
and every time you start up windoze you get the herds of systray nags that never shut up and keep coming back even after you dismiss them. I HATE that. I also hate all the junk that installs itself in the systray, and how the red carpet is rolled out for crapware and malware, and everyone but the owner of the PC has control. jrm, you may be kidding, but I think you are 100% true. |
| jrm Jul 18, 2007 7:25 PM EDT |
No, I wasn't kidding except the part about cron with AI. The real genius of Microsoft was convincing people that things are supposed to be like this. |
| tracyanne Jul 18, 2007 7:32 PM EDT |
Yes that was real marketing genius. |
| gus3 Jul 18, 2007 9:26 PM EDT |
As an add-on to my Jul 17, 2007 2:25 AM comment:Quoting:Windows users are notorious for clicking on things they shouldn't, whether in email or in a "This requires admin privileges" dialog box. http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=129122&WT.svl... From the article's last paragraph: Quoting:Don't rely on the users to protect themselves. And never forget, "whenever a box pops up on the screen, a user will click 'OK' because the makes the box goes away," he added. It's this kind of mentality that ensures security pros will always have a job. |
| tuxchick Jul 18, 2007 10:03 PM EDT |
Eh, it's not fair to blame users for the giant steaming pile of crud that is Windows. If houses were built as shoddily as Windows we would sleep outside by choice. |
| gus3 Jul 18, 2007 10:33 PM EDT |
tuxchick: I concur, to a certain extent. "If architects built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." However, there are some things you just don't click, but sadly Windows promotes the mentality that "do the right thing" means "clicking." Remember the ILOVEYOU email? |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 3:41 AM EDT |
> but sadly Windows promotes the mentality that "do the right thing" means "clicking." You had it right in your earlier post: Too many pointless annoyances = click on it so that I can keep working. It's why the Vista security doesn't work, and, as I understand it, gets disabled by anybody who actually cares to do a little computing. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 19, 2007 3:51 AM EDT |
Most people don't know how to disable UAC on Vista. I'm guessing MS made that difficult on purpose. The worst thing about it is, wehn you disable UAC, Vista still throws clickety-click nag screens at you, telling you that UAC is off and that you should enable it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!