7 posts • joined 22 Jul 2009
Windows Phone? No thanks
My 15 month old Galaxy S2 has specs not far off this and with Jelly Bean is as slick or slicker in terms of polish. Not to mention not being totally locked down, and with more and better apps.
Also, am I the only one that doesn't like Metro? I find it inefficient and clumsy. It wastes lots of screen space and e.g. the all apps list is a pain to navigate. Once you get past the tiles (which are nice, granted) it's just not very good.
One of my coworkers has a Samsung with WP7.5 and we have tried racing to do various tasks and the SGS2 generally has won handsomely, that is if the WP phone can do it at all (case in point: try emailing a PDF that you've just downloaded from the web. In Android it's Share->Gmail from the Adobe Reader app, in WP7.5 we simply couldn't figure out how to do it, the Adobe Reader app has no share function and WP doesn't let you near the filesystem to do it manually.)
If this is an example of a typical WP8 launch phone then I'll be sticking with Android for my next phone.
Not a protocol issue!
This is not a protocol failure: the issue is that the OS X LDAP client allows a user to login no matter what password has been used.
Active Directory requires a client that works properly too. It's perfectly possible to write a GINA or Authentication Provider that allows a user to login with the wrong password, even if the Windows box is joined to a domain. The user won't get access to Windows file shares if they do, because they won't have a valid Kerberos ticket, but they'll be logged into the local machine just fine. Fortunately Microsoft does not supply such a pointless authentication provider with the OS. Unlike Apple.
This is just a massive cock-up by Apple.
I'm definitely buying my mother-in-law one
It's perfect for her. No moving parts so it's harder to break the hardware, no accessible operating system she can hose with malware, and the Google apps already do everything she needs out of a computer. She doesn't really take her existing laptop out of her house either.
Myself, I wouldn't be seen dead with one. But it's the end of my tech support nightmare with my mother-in-law.
This article is the root cause of the problem
This kind of thinking is precisely why British defence procurement has been in such a mess for decades. We have to accept that we will never have the perfect fighter, submarine, tank, helicopter, or aircraft carrier. Someone else's will always be better in some way or another, and what we build will always be more expensive than we think it ought to be. This is simply the way things are. If you disagree you probably need to study your history better. But if we keep changing our mind during the process and changing the specification then we will never get there and it will cost us far more than if we had stuck to our initial idea!
Really it's about confidence in our own abilities as a nation to produce the goods, and articles like this one do nothing but undermine that. Britain should have the confidence to produce anything it needs: it certainly has the talent and it has a glorious history producing the very finest engineering. Britain has got so mired in post-colonial doubt about its abilities that we fail to do anything effectively.
France, on the other hand, has not. France builds its own nuclear deterrent, their own missiles, their own submarines (without having to get US management consultants in to run the show... hello KBR), they launch satellites, they go into space, and they had the Rafale 5 years or more before the Eurofighter. They keep a larger standing army, their air force is larger than the UK's and their navy is of comparable size. Somehow they manage to do all this with a smaller defence budget than the UK. I think we need to ask ourselves as a nation how they do that.
p.s. aren't the French building one of these carriers? Didn't they pay the UK for the design? I think that says it all.
No-one who has had to deal with Microsoft licensing at the business end thinks of it as anything other than deliberately arcane and convoluted. The confusion suits Microsoft: businesses spend money on licenses they don't strictly need just to be safe, and even then no business feels safe from a BSA audit, most can't be completely sure they are in compliance.
This is known as coercion by most people, but for some reason it isn't in the IT world, it's seen as standard practice.
The solution is (of course) to avoid Microsoft products wherever possible lest one get trapped in their licensing web. Samba (or an appliance built on Samba) fixes part of the problem, the Google apps a great deal also. The two of them together provide a decent enough solution for many small to medium businesses, even if they do still have to run a Microsoft OS on the desktop itself.
Microsoft bashes Linux with highly debatable 'facts'? News at 11.
The relentless and unstoppable slow waddle of the penguin carries on regardless. Ballmer might as well change his name by deed poll to Canute.
Keep it up!
Totally troll-tastic as ever Ted. Keep practising, one day you will be good enough to troll Slashdot. Until then, good luck!
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- OnePlus One cut-price Android phone on sale to all... for 1 HOUR
- UNIX greybeards threaten Debian fork over systemd plan