Never said for Notes. Just ditched Exchange. As far as email goes, we stopped hosting it. It was a huge drain on cash and the seventh most ticketed item in help desk was always something like, "help my phone stopped getting email."
Totally underrated comment. You hit the nail on the head. I think Slashdot has a way of attracting desktop thinkers, which isn't a bad thing don't get me wrong on that point. However, I hear the same old stale arguments tossed out there about desktops every year and every year desktop sales erode just a little bit more. In my company, there are like ten to fifteen technical workers that use desktops to create online business reporting that hundreds of end users use on their iPads and Android tablets. The desktops are still there, we just need less of them because the mobile devices do 99% of the work for 90% of the employees. The crap like working with spreadsheets sent in and all of that crap, the company fired those folks because they figured out that they could automate all that crap with advanced ETL tools. What used to be Word documents that held all our company processes, has changed into someone from the engineering department passing a BPMN document into an online processor and it spitting out technical documents that people on the floor modify using their tablets. I'd say about 80% of the technical documentation is now written by a computer, the other 20% is done on a tablet. Presentations are pretty much take a bunch of photos from your phone, some charts and data taken from the BI reporting tool, and about 100 or less words dictated to the iPad, and boom you've got your quarterly meeting presentation. Again, majority of the information comes from a machine and the small amount of actual work to be done a desktop is forty billion times over qualified.
So for the guy above you who thinks all this stuff is so far off. This is something that happens today because the majority of actual work isn't done by humans anyway. The stuff doesn't have to be more capable because we fired those people who required that and automated their job. We don't need more software, sheer numbers is just a dumb figure. We don't care about usability, pretty much everything is just a computer talking to a computer, we just need to see the end result, and the people who maintain the two systems talking to each other, we need at most like three of them. Desktops are not dead and they aren't going to die off completely, but we need way fewer of them now and that trend is only going to increase.
To address each of your points.
Photoshop - Does anyone "really" run this on Windows?! I thought that was mostly a Mac thing, but whatever, I'll give that one to you.
Full Office - This is the big thing about the Build 2015, Office becoming its own platform. This "run Android / iOS" crap pales in comparison to the Office as a platform part. If Microsoft can do this whole thing "right" Office will become bigger than anything they imagined.
World of Warcraft - Really? Just no, you don't get that one.
All productivity software - That depends on your definition of that word. Many of our most productive folks work with OLAP cubes and our big data stuff in all in cloud. Most documentation done in house is in the cloud with the software to produce it in the cloud. To be fair though, we're mostly an IBM i shop and most everything runs on that i, aside from Excel, Word, and PowerPoint (we ditched Exchanged long time ago and wondered why we didn't do it sooner). So because of your vague-iness, I'm not giving you that one, and also a lot of productivity isn't done by humans anyway and the part that is done requires different tools than the tools people used for productivity ten years ago.
I'm pretty sure Windows has a place in the future, but desktop for the majority of folks is dead. I see more and more iPads with BT keyboards replacing laptops at colleges, I see more big data/cloud services in companies, I see more things becoming automated that once was some "productivity" thing humans did. Each day I see fat desktops becoming less usable. That's not to say they'll go away, far from that, but they aren't going to be the dominate device for much longer. Microsoft has had some serious issues with getting a solid mobile product to market and it is killing them. If they make good on the Office as a platform thing, they'll be in a much better position than they are now. However, we are past the point where Microsoft just has to put out a good device or a good OS. They've got to become the preferred device, the preferred OS. People are going to have some random Wintel in their house that gets dusted off for the term paper or whatever, but Microsoft really needs to get into the position where people are letting their iPhones collect dust if they really stand a chance for a brighter future than being relegated to the thing you see when you get to work.
Yes, but the point is that all of those solutions cost money to build and maintain. Now let's be clear, the energy companies are freaking assholes, but their argument is that since the solar people brought the panels, then they should be the ones who pay for those water pumping stations to be built, and share in the cost of the employees to run the place. Otherwise, the solar people need to have their own on-premise storage and stop dumping into the line.
The big diff is that the power companies are subsidised heavily, unlike the independent solar. So I would say that the energy company has an obligation to not push the cost of peak transmission onto independent producers.
At any rate, you've hit the crux of the issue, who pays for the grid to handle this stuff? The electric companies think the solar folks should pay 100%, the solar folks think the power company should pay, others think it's a mix. Even if the total cost comes out a few million to start plus a few hundred thousand for employees and upkeep a year, the power companies want solar producers to float 100% the cost and a large group of them have indicated that they'll only pay for it kicking and screaming.
Most truck drivers already know the writing is on the wall. The older ones could not care less, they'll be off the road for good before there is enough states stitched together to make any usable routes. The younger ones don't care either, they barely like their job to begin with and anything that makes their life less stressful all the better.
And all of that cycles around the fact that it'll be a long time before someone in some state's capital let's 80,000 pounds just roll down the road unsupervised. Most truck drivers are pretty convinced that their jobs will just turn into watching a machine roll down the road, and sign the paperwork when that machine runs into something.
Also, besides the obvious state law stuff that needs to get passed. Security will need to be addressed as well. There already is a problem with semis that are not automatic and they have a human watching the goods for a majority of the time. Imagine a semi just rolling down the street and someone decides to flatten the tires with a spike strip. Yeah, an alarm might go off, but the thieves will be long gone with the goods by the time anyone gets to the disabled machine.
I'm going to unofficially call it as NIH being the most overused term in pretty much all technical discussion boards. I would say that NIH has reach near if not equal to Godwin's law status. Therefore, the next person to bring up NIH, we should all collectively treat such statements as useless banter and move on with our lives.
Apparently if someone purposes or actually implements something that wasn't purposed or implemented back in the 1970s, it automatically classifies that new thing as NIH. Because everyone knows that the 70s were the apparent height of computer technology and neckbeards. Screw idealism, you'll take X and it's fifty million extensions from my cold dead hands! And I like my start up scripts like I like my Egyptian tombs, hard to understand and full of things to trap and destroy you! Now get off my lawn!!
The problem with a black hole target, other than the obvious inability to make a miniature black hole that can be stable enough to fire something at it, would be that while the two protons may or may not fuse in the heart of the black hole, we will never know because they have crossed the event horizon and the energy they may or may not produce is now beyond our ability to detect and to a greater degree use.
I just couldn't stomach the idea of up-voting all of the ding-dong the witch is dead comments, no matter how much I wanted to blow all my mod point here. Instead I'll just add to the crush of Ellison hate, especially considering the whole notion of copyrighting APIs that the smug dickface motherfucker is trying to pander to make a few quick ones from Google.
"Oh wait you're serious, let me laugh harder!" It's always funny how Futurama quotes so aptly apply to trolls.
And yeah, syslog and how it works is indefensible. So if you're writing your DB logs to the same place init is writing, you've got bigger issues about your Unix administration and why you are writing banking transactions to syslog and not its own log. Unless the point was to take a completely unrelated topic and try to shoehorn it into the conversation.
The complaint is that the process at PID 1 should be simple.
That's just passing the buck. What you don't do in PID 1, needs to be done by PID 2 or 3 or 4...
One has to understand that system start up is a complex task. Systemd, sysvinit, launchd, and what-not are just a matter of optics, no matter which one you choose, you are only changing how you look at the problem, you aren't making the problem any easier. That's the important thing to remember, that all of these inits are just different views on how to solve the problem. No matter how many times you break the process up (into PID 4 through 380), it's still a complex task that needs to get done.
That said, sysvinit comes with the idea that you're going to have a lot of people looking inward at what's been done historically, they're going to make really useful tools, and the expectation is that those that follow will use those tools. That's nice and there is a real benefit for that, but that's not what vendors are going after, that's not what third-parties want, and that's not what end-consumers want. The only people that sysvinit caters to any more is developers and neck-breads. Vendors are going to write their own tools for start up. Third-parties are going to package up the process into something that can be simply delivered to the customer. Standard end-users just don't give a shit so long as the screen comes up. Heck, even server admins won't really care so long as management can still log in. There just isn't clientele for the old way. That's not to say that the old way isn't useful, but honestly you are asking a bunch of Pepsi drinkers to switch over to Coke for just the sake of "it is easier to make."
SystemD puts all the cards closer together, this allows smaller teams to do useful stuff, and let's face it, the number of people writing kernel, sub-system, and start up code is only going to keep dropping. The hotness is much, much higher up. Vendors like systemd because it works better than script->call program in their deployment cycle. Now they can use systemd reporting to bubble back up into the UI as oppose to writing to some arcane log file. No one can defend the old log files, they seriously were so confusing that there are companies that you can hire and tools that you can buy that can turn your log file into something easier to read. That's just indefensible. I'm not saying that systemd is some magical power that's turned a turd into gold (starting up a system is still a pain in the ass), but it serves a wider group that more than likely (as all the neck-beards die off from old age) will be maintaining this whole thing in the longer term and simplifies something that has gone from, "it was good and easy" to "holy crap! The log file is 23MB!!" Back when we were starting up an FTP server and that's about it, it was great, but now that every sub-system from the kernel feels a need to write to the log on top of everything else that you vendor starts up, it's just a flipping mess.
It's important to remember the Unix way, but systems have gotten so complex we just don't do it that way in reality anymore.
Agree, this is obvious troll bait. There are multiple photos of the iPhone with the camera nub visible on Apple's site. Editors, seriously, WTF?!
I guess the more insightful comment would have been. "I want my technological device to contain stuff I CHOOSE, not stuff chosen for me. This is going to become an ever increasing problem as every f***ing company want ever intrusive ads so you always have an opportunity to buy something."
The problem is not Apple's alone. We are increasing our cross section of our daily lives with technology, thus with a wider cross section, there's bound to be more and more interactions between us and some sort of marketing or ad gimmick that a company has paid for. While I get that no one wants that crap (and neither do I), this ad revenue does prop up some services that we take for granted for some folks.
Perhaps the conversation we all should be having is, are we okay with becoming an end point for ads, in exchange for really useful stuff? Or do we need things like email and search to take a more HBO approach to things?