Aug 5: A couple of Microsoft items
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I read that you've resorted to reposting /. stories. Way to strive for mediocrity!
But I want to also comment on your Microsoft comments. Sure, the virus bit is humorous, but it's not all that great. Remember when Windows 95 was being developed? There was a virus written for it BEFORE the developer copies were released. That's impressive and funny.
In the post, there's an implicit attack against Microsoft for releasing problematic software. I dislike problems as much as the next piece of software, but haven't we all realized that all software is problematic? Even for the diehard and naive, the frequent critical security updates to Firefox should serve as an alarm clock. And for those diehard Linux fans, this is the entire premise behind the constant compiling and builds that are released. The question shouldn't be how problematic the software is, but how problematic is its use. Windoze rulez because it is the easiest to use, even if it isn't the most secure, fastest, slimmest, feature-ful, or whatever. Now begin going on a hysterical rant. With that said, the next machine I call home will probably be one of those nice wonderful 12 inch Apple Powerbooks. And for the record, I dual boot Red Hat and XP.
My last point is on your DRM point. Yeah, DRM is wack. That's all.
Oh, no links in comments is lame!
First, ouch.
...and now on to my actual comment:
Well, AG... I agree and I disagree. Obviously, I disagree with your statement that Windows rulez.
I agree that all software has bugs and security holes. What makes this (somewhat) amusing, is that 1) it's a virus before the software was released, and 2) that it comes after MS has been touting their new security focus. In real-world effect, this won't do anything. I'm sure it will be fixed (or at least mitigated somewhat) by the final release of Vista.
I am amused by your use of Firefox as your example. Only one of the recent fixes was security-related. 1.0.5 was a security fix, and 1.0.6 was a fix for a bug relating to extensions that 1.0.5 introduced (I think the FF guys admitted that the new bug was kind of a stupid mistake). I think they were released close enough together, that most people didn't ever install 1.0.5, instead they just went straight to .6.
I also sort of agree with your statement of "The question shouldn't be how problematic the software is, but how problematic is its use." This is true to a certain degree. There are always tradeoffs with this sort of thing. Microsoft typically chooses usability over security or stability. We've seen the rampant spread of viruses and spyware that have resulted from this decision. Some linux distros also make this choice, while others are so locked down as to be very difficult to use, while still others try to find a good mix of the two.
So, the point is that ease of use is only one in a myriad of factors that should be evalua
ted. Also, I disagree that Windows wins on ease of use in many cases, too.
By your last sentence in the windows-related paragraph: "With that said, the next machine I call home will probably be one of those nice wonderful 12 inch Apple Powerbooks. And for the record, I dual boot Red Hat and XP.", I can see that you already know what I've said abo
ve and have made your choice accordingly.
Sorry about the no links in the comments. I'll see if that's something I can configure.
p.s. I wrote this comment in 3 sittings interrupted by my kids, so if it's a little disjoi
nted, that's why.
hmmm, copying and pasting into this little box seems to have messed up the formatting of my previous comment.
So "Windows Vista" is lame, yet naming every release version of your OS after characters in an animated movie is cool? Just wondering.
short answer: yes.
long answer: yes. Cartoon characters are way cooler than some vague marketing word. Cmon! Vista? Are you defending Vista?
2nd longish answer: yes. The cartoon characters you refer to are codenames for the release similar to Vista's codename of Longhorn. I liked Longhorn better than Vista, and I like Debian 3.0 better than either. For that matter, I'd prefer Windows Sarge to Windows Vista.
I forgot about this thread. Been busy and haven't check in on my now-declared-crappy RSS software buddy (RSS Reader; Feadreader also is worthless).
Anyway, good comments on the first thread and no real responses. We know where we stand and we agree a lot, just subtle differences...like you're a Linux Luser.
I vote Windows Duckman.
http://www.creighton.edu/~jduche/duckfaq.html#premise
maybe you should make your rss reader into a transparent floating window.
Add Comment
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I read that you've resorted to reposting /. stories. Way to strive for mediocrity!
But I want to also comment on your Microsoft comments. Sure, the virus bit is humorous, but it's not all that great. Remember when Windows 95 was being developed? There was a virus written for it BEFORE the developer copies were released. That's impressive and funny.
In the post, there's an implicit attack against Microsoft for releasing problematic software. I dislike problems as much as the next piece of software, but haven't we all realized that all software is problematic? Even for the diehard and naive, the frequent critical security updates to Firefox should serve as an alarm clock. And for those diehard Linux fans, this is the entire premise behind the constant compiling and builds that are released. The question shouldn't be how problematic the software is, but how problematic is its use. Windoze rulez because it is the easiest to use, even if it isn't the most secure, fastest, slimmest, feature-ful, or whatever. Now begin going on a hysterical rant. With that said, the next machine I call home will probably be one of those nice wonderful 12 inch Apple Powerbooks. And for the record, I dual boot Red Hat and XP.
My last point is on your DRM point. Yeah, DRM is wack. That's all.
Oh, no links in comments is lame!
But I want to also comment on your Microsoft comments. Sure, the virus bit is humorous, but it's not all that great. Remember when Windows 95 was being developed? There was a virus written for it BEFORE the developer copies were released. That's impressive and funny.
In the post, there's an implicit attack against Microsoft for releasing problematic software. I dislike problems as much as the next piece of software, but haven't we all realized that all software is problematic? Even for the diehard and naive, the frequent critical security updates to Firefox should serve as an alarm clock. And for those diehard Linux fans, this is the entire premise behind the constant compiling and builds that are released. The question shouldn't be how problematic the software is, but how problematic is its use. Windoze rulez because it is the easiest to use, even if it isn't the most secure, fastest, slimmest, feature-ful, or whatever. Now begin going on a hysterical rant. With that said, the next machine I call home will probably be one of those nice wonderful 12 inch Apple Powerbooks. And for the record, I dual boot Red Hat and XP.
My last point is on your DRM point. Yeah, DRM is wack. That's all.
Oh, no links in comments is lame!
First, ouch.
...and now on to my actual comment:
Well, AG... I agree and I disagree. Obviously, I disagree with your statement that Windows rulez.
I agree that all software has bugs and security holes. What makes this (somewhat) amusing, is that 1) it's a virus before the software was released, and 2) that it comes after MS has been touting their new security focus. In real-world effect, this won't do anything. I'm sure it will be fixed (or at least mitigated somewhat) by the final release of Vista.
I am amused by your use of Firefox as your example. Only one of the recent fixes was security-related. 1.0.5 was a security fix, and 1.0.6 was a fix for a bug relating to extensions that 1.0.5 introduced (I think the FF guys admitted that the new bug was kind of a stupid mistake). I think they were released close enough together, that most people didn't ever install 1.0.5, instead they just went straight to .6.
I also sort of agree with your statement of "The question shouldn't be how problematic the software is, but how problematic is its use." This is true to a certain degree. There are always tradeoffs with this sort of thing. Microsoft typically chooses usability over security or stability. We've seen the rampant spread of viruses and spyware that have resulted from this decision. Some linux distros also make this choice, while others are so locked down as to be very difficult to use, while still others try to find a good mix of the two.
So, the point is that ease of use is only one in a myriad of factors that should be evalua
ted. Also, I disagree that Windows wins on ease of use in many cases, too.
By your last sentence in the windows-related paragraph: "With that said, the next machine I call home will probably be one of those nice wonderful 12 inch Apple Powerbooks. And for the record, I dual boot Red Hat and XP.", I can see that you already know what I've said abo
ve and have made your choice accordingly.
Sorry about the no links in the comments. I'll see if that's something I can configure.
p.s. I wrote this comment in 3 sittings interrupted by my kids, so if it's a little disjoi
nted, that's why.
...and now on to my actual comment:
Well, AG... I agree and I disagree. Obviously, I disagree with your statement that Windows rulez.
I agree that all software has bugs and security holes. What makes this (somewhat) amusing, is that 1) it's a virus before the software was released, and 2) that it comes after MS has been touting their new security focus. In real-world effect, this won't do anything. I'm sure it will be fixed (or at least mitigated somewhat) by the final release of Vista.
I am amused by your use of Firefox as your example. Only one of the recent fixes was security-related. 1.0.5 was a security fix, and 1.0.6 was a fix for a bug relating to extensions that 1.0.5 introduced (I think the FF guys admitted that the new bug was kind of a stupid mistake). I think they were released close enough together, that most people didn't ever install 1.0.5, instead they just went straight to .6.
I also sort of agree with your statement of "The question shouldn't be how problematic the software is, but how problematic is its use." This is true to a certain degree. There are always tradeoffs with this sort of thing. Microsoft typically chooses usability over security or stability. We've seen the rampant spread of viruses and spyware that have resulted from this decision. Some linux distros also make this choice, while others are so locked down as to be very difficult to use, while still others try to find a good mix of the two.
So, the point is that ease of use is only one in a myriad of factors that should be evalua
ted. Also, I disagree that Windows wins on ease of use in many cases, too.
By your last sentence in the windows-related paragraph: "With that said, the next machine I call home will probably be one of those nice wonderful 12 inch Apple Powerbooks. And for the record, I dual boot Red Hat and XP.", I can see that you already know what I've said abo
ve and have made your choice accordingly.
Sorry about the no links in the comments. I'll see if that's something I can configure.
p.s. I wrote this comment in 3 sittings interrupted by my kids, so if it's a little disjoi
nted, that's why.
hmmm, copying and pasting into this little box seems to have messed up the formatting of my previous comment.
So "Windows Vista" is lame, yet naming every release version of your OS after characters in an animated movie is cool? Just wondering.
short answer: yes.
long answer: yes. Cartoon characters are way cooler than some vague marketing word. Cmon! Vista? Are you defending Vista?
2nd longish answer: yes. The cartoon characters you refer to are codenames for the release similar to Vista's codename of Longhorn. I liked Longhorn better than Vista, and I like Debian 3.0 better than either. For that matter, I'd prefer Windows Sarge to Windows Vista.
long answer: yes. Cartoon characters are way cooler than some vague marketing word. Cmon! Vista? Are you defending Vista?
2nd longish answer: yes. The cartoon characters you refer to are codenames for the release similar to Vista's codename of Longhorn. I liked Longhorn better than Vista, and I like Debian 3.0 better than either. For that matter, I'd prefer Windows Sarge to Windows Vista.
I forgot about this thread. Been busy and haven't check in on my now-declared-crappy RSS software buddy (RSS Reader; Feadreader also is worthless).
Anyway, good comments on the first thread and no real responses. We know where we stand and we agree a lot, just subtle differences...like you're a Linux Luser.
I vote Windows Duckman.
http://www.creighton.edu/~jduche/duckfaq.html#premise
Anyway, good comments on the first thread and no real responses. We know where we stand and we agree a lot, just subtle differences...like you're a Linux Luser.
I vote Windows Duckman.
http://www.creighton.edu/~jduche/duckfaq.html#premise
maybe you should make your rss reader into a transparent floating window.
Add Comment
