Comment Re:nVidia (Score 1) 245
I think you might want to check your room for elephants.
I think you might want to check your room for elephants.
I can't believe this thread is Still Alive.
Please point me to where Ubuntu keeps pieces of any particular Web browser throughout the OS - and has for the better part of a decade, if not longer.
You may include Debian, if it helps, to support the second part of your claim, since I know Ubuntu hasn't been remotely mainstream for the better part of a decade.
Wait, what? I would just write you off as an AC troll, but I've heard arguments like this before (hell, when I was 13, I might have written something like this), and I feel the need to be the one to do the grunt work of arguing against you, because someone felt that something somewhere in your post deserved a "+1 Insightful". It's grunt work, because you don't really have any good arguments at all.
Before I begin, I want to point something out. The idea was on the table at some point to offer users a choice, either at install-time or anytime afterward, between several browsers to install for Windows 7. Anything remotely resembling legitimate reasons for bundling IE with Windows would be solved by keeping it uninstalled by default, with an easy way to install a web browser afterwards.
Let me go paragraph-by-paragraph, here.
MS is not 'out to get you'. Putting IE into the system makes sense since for 3 reasons. 1) they have a doc system built in for helping users no reason to have 2 systems (die
1) There aren't enough drugs on the planet to make me understand where you're going with this one. Are you arguing the point for the removal of WinHelp from Windows Vista in an attempt to make it look like you have more reasons for bundling IE with Windows?
2) You're saying that it makes sense to bundle a browser with the operating system because of a separate idea that was never going to be included in the system to begin with? If you think that that argument helps your position, then you need to "put down the bong dude".
3) Please point me towards the "everyone who actually likes and uses Windows at the time" installing Windows so frequently that they were "getting tired" of spending the comparatively short amount of time afterwards to finish setting up their environment by installing an application that was not bundled with the operating system and why their complaints were somehow more justified because it was a web browser than they would have been if it were any other non-web browser application, such as WordPerfect or Oregon Trail.
Not having it there would be like downloading say Ubuntu and then spending 20 mins figuring out which ftp site to go to to install a browser. Not even going to the repository to get it (remember its not built in). No that is silly, there is one built in even if it is one you 'dont like'. Web browsers come with the OS. Think you need to deal with it. Every OS since 1994 has had one cooked in even if it is some open source thing. If anything MS was late to the party (as usual) by not having one built in until 96.
Can you please share with us your definition of the term "built in"? Just because something isn't built in doesn't mean you can't download it from the Ubuntu repositories. Also, I think that at one point, there was a technology that allowed you to make physical copies of files that you normally would have to spend "20 mins figuring out which ftp site to go to" just to get, and you could even trade some of your lunch money with the man at the corner store in exchange for all kinds of programs, like web browsers or operating systems.
Furthermore, web browsers don't have to come with the OS; there's no technical reason to include one. There are actually many examples of operating systems that do not, in fact, bundle web browsers. Gentoo is one I can think of right off the bat. I don't care enough to confirm, but FreeBSD probably doesn't, and I don't remember my Arch Linux base install coming with one either. As I said above, there is the idea of the OS making it easy to install a web browser by offering a choice between browsers (or no browser, of course), and that is fundamentally different than bundling a web browser with the OS in such a way that it is a part of the system itself more than just another program running on it.
The reason MS did it was because we were laughing at them for NOT doing it. It was a pain to have to install even more crap. Now it is install it let the patches update and your ready to rock. No, oh install that, install this, hmm did I get all the plug ins...
So I can just install Windows, satisfy Windows Update, and then go to YouTube and watch a video of a guy playing Enter Sandman on a kazoo? Oh, it needs Adobe Flash... hmm I didn't get all the plugins...
Even if everything did work perfectly out-of-the-box, the issue is that certain people (including the GP) feel that the inclusion of IE in the operating system in such a way that it is a vital part of the system is a violation of antitrust regulation. I have no comment on this specific point here, but you never really address this issue at all...
Whole install OS's have their place and the mainstream want it. They are the ones with the money. We tech guys are able and willing to tweak the hell out of a computer. But guess what most people dont want to be bothered with it. They want to buy their computer and surf the web. Thats it... If they have to stop and install extra stuff right when they first get their computer they are going to say 'this sucks'. And it will not suck because the software is junk, but because installing software is boring and not doing what they want it to do.
You know what else most people don't want to be bothered with? Installing Windows. That's why it's usually pre-installed when you buy a computer, with a bunch of extra programs installed on top of Windows to extend the basic functionality of Windows. For example, free trials of McAfee can increase the vendor's profits much more effectively than a Windows license, especially if McAfee properly scares the user into buying a full license. Another example might be putting Mozilla Firefox on the system, especially if Windows did not include a browser.
You ask how many hours were wasted because of IE not being kept up to date.
Actually, the GP talked about money wasted, not hours, and never asked anything remotely resembling what you claim (s)he did. I'll pretend like you didn't say that and just asked:
I ask how many would have been wasted on 'hmm did I get everything installed I wanted'. Or 'how do I install this?'
Do you really believe that there is a (vanilla) version of Windows that comes bundled with every piece of software that every customer will ever need? If so, then why do people still insist on selling software not included with Windows? I've heard that there are even a few companies that sell software not bundled with Windows that many people spend even more time using than their web browser!
Also apparently you never used Netscape 4. *THE* only other browser from the time that anyone could say competed with IE. It was a massive suck crash fest. 3-4 crashes per surfing session were not uncommon. Using IE was seriously a no brainier at the time. Do I still use IE, no. Why not? It stagnated and became a trojan magnet.
So, to re-phrase your main points with this in mind:
IE is a stagnant trojan magnet, but it should be bundled with Windows, because it doesn't make sense NOT to remove WinHelp from Vista (damn those
Wow, when I put it like that, it kind of looks like a shit argument doesn't it?
IE could have been the best browser out there. Now it is merely playing catchup. That was MS's game to loose. They will have a hard time getting the 'best browser' reputation back if ever.
You started out by trying to argue against the GP and just typed whatever popped into your head there; by the end, your train of thought looks completely different than it did when it left the station. I suggest re-evaluating your strategy. The only good move you made was posting as Anonymous Coward.
On a side note, what does GP stand for?
Grandparent
See? This is on a newline. All I did was hit the enter (return) key on my keyboard. A
Please tell me that "A" at the end was a joke in a comment about how easy it is to type comments on Slas
This is not a good thing; it is ascribing to the author of the article an idea that he did not espouse, which is not a very nice thing to do...
But I do recognize that putting words into an author's mouth is bad...
Heh... after reading that comment again, it seems that I need to add another unit test to my post-Preview test suite:
Accuracy check... pass!
Coherence check... pass!
Grammar/Punctuation check... pass!
Vocabulary usage check... pass!
Redundancy check... failed!
Redundancy check... failed!
2 tests failed. Please click "Continue Editing" and try again.
From the sound of it, the GP's problem isn't primarily with the quality of the submissions, but rather with the integrity and accuracy of the summaries that do end up getting posted as stories, after ostensibly being reviewed.
Look at the quote from the summary that the GP pointed out:
He defines 'aggressive monetization' to mean how much money will advance you 'unfairly' in the game.
In less direct words, it sounded like the GP was pointing out that the word "unfairly" is in quotation marks, yet the notion of fairness isn't even mentioned in the article, let alone the word "unfairly". This is not a good thing; it is ascribing to the author of the article an idea that he did not espouse, which is not a very nice thing to do.
I don't have a major problem with Soulskill about this; it's easily explained by oversight. Oversights happen. But I do recognize that putting words into an author's mouth is bad, and I think that's what the GP was saying here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The amount of coverage the media gives to an issue effects people's awareness to the issue --
so giving a scandal more coverage hurts the subject more in terms of the public's perception, and giving less coverage to a scandal, benefits.
Regardless, though, when you have mission critical data on a single drive you shut it down, put in a fire safe until you're ready to restore, whatever. But you don't just casually keep using it.
And I'm sure that the subject of this story knows that very well now, having made that mistake. Depending on the software involved and the quality of the written instructions that the subject was given, it may not have been obvious to a non-professional that there was a risk of losing existing data contained on that tape.
And who backs up a test database install anyway?
Someone who wants to make sure that the backups are being properly created and can be restored successfully before leaving it alone for an extended period of time.
the second story was procedural user error (do the backup every day, no matter what) being blamed on a technical problem (the backup system).
I call it a wash. Yes, it was a user error to back up the test database to a tape with valuable data on it.
However, the article implies that the user requested a $35 tape from her employer to use for new backups (it only actually says that the employer didn't authorize $35 for a second tape... not that a request was actually made). If this request were to have been approved and the user used the new tape for all future backups (and kept the old one read-only to preserve historical data), then the problem would not have occurred.
At least you haven't found the secret combination that turns you into Freakazoid. That one ended in Delete.
Crisis averted.
At the time that WaroDaBeast posted "I'm afraid the franchise has reached its half-life," any posts made after it would be more than half dead, which is one acceptable criterion for "mostly dead."
Thank you for this car analogy; rarely do they make so much sense in the context of the original topic.
Hypothetically, I am considering two identical job offers from two almost identical employers. The only difference between the employers is that only one of them has never pressed charges against an employee, leading to a 4-year jail sentence on top of the time served during a lengthy court case.
Even considering that I would plan on being reasonable and not plan on breaking any laws, I would still go with the offer from the employer who has not proven to be both capable and willing to take legal action against employees.
I think that you miss the point that barzok was making... here's how I interpreted it:
If she were "part of a crew casing the neighborhood", then her crew could easily use the lawn signs as markers. This would have the benefit of keeping others away (apparently, potential burglars don't try to rob houses with ADT lawn signs) while simultaneously serving as an indicator of who doesn't have real security systems (if you actually did have a security system, then you'd probably either have a lawn sign of your own or you almost certainly wouldn't accept one from them, and you wouldn't go out and get your own fake sign if you already have that one that the nice ADT people gave you, right?)
Assuming that this "crew" would be able to readily distinguish one of their lawn signs, this makes at least some amount of sense. She was probably legit (Occam's Razor), but the potential downside is big enough to use caution when faced with a situation like this.
A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.
