As always, the main problem...
Is that any possible negative effects will only manifest itself after many years of usage, by which its usually a bit too late. There is a reason why its usually healthier to follow a varied pattern for your food...
1931 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
Is that any possible negative effects will only manifest itself after many years of usage, by which its usually a bit too late. There is a reason why its usually healthier to follow a varied pattern for your food...
It would be nice to start with Bring Your Own Device before using the abbreviation, especially since this movement has several off springs like bringing your own phone, pc, laptop, etc. Not everyone keeps up, that's why we have you afterall...
Although I made quite a bit of fun about in the comment section of one of the earlier articles I do see the potential here, but in my opinion the thing shouldn't be focussed on bringing your own gear but to allow your personal broader and wider access to your data. That's the main key point, one which could have been made anyway. However, I'm a little sceptical about the massive touting people are doing because let's face it: giving access is one thing, using said access is something completely different. That takes someone who feels committed and involved with his job.
But yes, it can work. This reminds of a sysadmin job back in the 90'ish. It was an enterprise-like company, but not as big that we could afford 24hr monitoring of our services. We did have something as a hotline; one person who would "take watch" for the evening to make sure that if their were problems he could get into his car, go to the office and step in when required. Due to safety concerns there were no outside connections permitted, none what so ever. At once time the upper brass became a little more lenient and allowed a Unix machine to be accessible from the outside with limited connections to the internal network.
And so I designed a scheme to relay 3389/tcp data internally, and went through all the official channels to get permission for implementation, even more tiresome than developing the model itself. The result was that certain people, amongst myself, would now get strictly controlled access to the internal Windows server network from their home location (this was only allowed if you had a static IP address; both for easier administration as well as a form of signal to the upper brass that you were deeper involved with this technology).
The result should be obvious; many people, including myself, would easily logon during the evening in their own time to check if everything was still ok. This even prevented a disaster one day because one of my colleagues did the same, spotted something weird, immediately called the manager and prevented a major disaster due to a bug in one of the monitoring scripts. This guy was working from home, in his own time, because he felt that was important.
This BYOD thing is basically no different, apart from one thing... I fear that its main motivation isn't so much to involve more people into the way the company works, but to try and apply a cost reduction on hardware and making it more appealing for the crowd to use their own stuff. I can see how this will have a psychological effect too: "Ha, at least those asses from ICT will no longer be able to tell me how to use my computer!". Of course without an extra pay check for all the hours you put into getting the whole thing to work.
And there's the small issue, one which I made fun off in my previous post about this subject, that there's usually a good reason why ICT restricts several things on the network.
I think a lot of companies are going to find out that BYOD sounds awesome in theory, and that the first signs will also be very positive due to a large number of employers embracing the idea. But I think it will mostly be fuelled by the wrong motivations (cost reduction, less limitations) and that can come to haunt you....
First I'm missing a link to the research summary (link to Forrester.com summary). And when reading through that article I can't help wonder if the research isn't a bit flawed here and there.
Not saying that the end results aren't true, but lets face it: a lot of researches also predicted the end of the PC as we knew it, and that has actually yet to happen because although tablets are becoming more popular, they're usually an extension of what people already have. It's extending on the "PC experience", not replacing it perse.
And of course they also make sure to add catchy results, such as stating that a majority of end-users would prefer Windows 8 over Windows 7, all according to their own research data of course.
Yet the thing is; there's one very important factor we need to keep in mind here, this company is selling access to their survey data (link to forrester.com dataservice page). As such it has a commercial interest in making their researches as appealing or provoking as possible.
And let's face it; didn't a majority of the so called experts also predict huge successes for Windows 8? When looking at the Forrester blog some people associated with this company sure seemed to think so, what to think about Windows 8: Think you can skip it? Think again! (link to Forrester blog post dated March 8, 2012).
Seems people have little problems with skipping it though...
"I also belive that opening it up will kill blackberry."
And I think it will do quite the opposite. In fact, I pick it up as a direct assault on the Windows Phone, and not just that: one which is actually working too. You see; obviously Android and iOS have the biggest market share, but there are plenty of people (like myself) who don't like the idea of allowing Google to "control" their live (think Android) nor like the "overpriced" gadgets which are Apple and in many cases tied into Apple. Please note: this is my opinion on the matter, not saying it's so per definition.
So for those kinds of people the Windows Phone was quite a welcome change, and it started out pretty good as well. But the thing is: it has been going downhill ever since. My gf used to be able to use Messenger on her computer to send me an IM which I could then received on my phone when I was on the road. No more: it's now all Skype, and personally I hate Skype. Not to mention that this option doesn't work as well as it used to.
For us the instant messaging part has become a big deal, together with the option to share some kind of (shopping) list using OneNote which we can then access and modify together.
Well, BBM (link to Blackberry BBM page) looks like a very interesting replacement to me. And although OneNote (link to Office OneNote page) isn't available for the Blackberry right now a lot can happen in a year. And even if it doesn't there maybe other solutions available as well.
So... I'm a Windows phone user and right now I'm now looking at Blackberry as a possible replacement for my phone next year. That wouldn't have happened otherwise.
"There is what I call the creepy line. The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
I think Google will also have no problems with possibly crossing said line either, in my opinion I think they're doing so anyway. The only problem is when they get caught. But then again, a company with a bank account of that magnitude will also have little problems coughing up any fines which the authorities can dish out.
Even so, I actually prefer this attitude than the previous one of "do no evil", one which has often been proven to be bogus. At least they're honest about it.
So the bottom line is simple; if you care for your privacy, if you can sometimes extend that care into a "paranoid bordering opinion" then its best to avoid Google, which means also not to consider getting a Google Glass. Its perfectly doable too; I don't got an Android smartphone, I don't use gmail or any other of their services. The only thing I do sporadically use is their search engine, and their webmaster tools.
"We have been warned".
I think you're confusing theory with the cold facts. Yes, in theory the government is 'us' and is basically paid to handle the chores which involve all of us (think cleaning up the city, road management, etc, etc).
The reality however is different; the government as a whole has grown into a machinery of its own with very few connections into the community. As such it holds their own agenda's, doesn't always put the interest of the people above their own (a very good and global example is the ongoing lobbying done by politicians to try and get a spot somewhere in the European parliament) and in many cases even tries to undo itself from its own responsibilities (think about privatising "community services" (my own wording) such as water and electricity services).
Don't take this message the wrong way; this isn't a justification to DDoS the living daylights out of them. I'm merely commenting on your vision of the government, that vision is in my personal opinion quite flawed to say the least.
Same here, only a few use it and everyone I know who does immediately installed a 'start menu replacement'. Most of the people around me who were still on XP bought Windows 7 instead (a few of them because of me; I warned them that if they waited too long they couldn't buy Win7 anymore even if they wanted to).
I'm much more curious how much Windows 7 has sold in the past months. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the 'sale spike' Microsoft was hoping to get with Windows 8 actually happened with Windows 7.
In all fairness those kind of businesses would most likely settle for a plan which included the desktop versions.
At least he didn't start blaming Office for the typo's ;-)
"Office 365 subscribers gain access to Office Web Apps. These are in-browser variants of the installable Office applications. Currently supported are Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Onenote."
Yet guess what? I'm not a 365 subscriber but an Office 2010 user and I also got access to the Office web apps. Thing is; everyone who has a Microsoft ID can get access to their free e-mail services (the service formerly known as Hotmail) but also to their web applications. And considering how "low level" plans of Office 365 focus themselves on the web applications one has to wonder what the extra value is on those plans.
I think you made a very good analysis so far, Office 365 isn't cheap in comparison but its been my experience that it also doesn't take away the need for support of some sort (depending on the company and chosen plan of course). Something Microsoft also seems to acknowledge because some plans come with specific 24/7 phone support. They wouldn't roll that in without a good reason...
And although I also agree with regards to Lync as being a good means of communication, there is something many people / companies tend to overlook: if you already have a license for a Windows 2008 or 2013 server you also gain the right to use Sharepoint (link to Office Sharepoint website) on that server, the 'free' Foundation version to be precise. (this even applies to Server 2003, but that's a bit dated).
Although its main focus is aimed at websites these days one of its features is allowing so called "workspaces" to be build which can be used by a variety of users. If you then pick up the freely available Sharepoint workspace (link to Office Sharepoint Workspace page) you can achieve something somewhat comparable to what you'd get with Lync.
Which addresses a completely different aspect by itself: the information given to you by Microsoft these days is somewhat "tainted". They try everything to persuade you to start a subscription while in fact you may have other, more cheaper, alternatives available. Even while you may not realize it yet. But information on those options is more than often sparse to say the least...
Alas, nice article and I'm very anxious to read your findings.
Oh; please do share which subscription you got or are evaluating...
The real question though; will it also help the medicine go down?
Sure, I agree with the "complaint" when we're talking about bashing or plain out trolling, but in general I think Microsoft was asking for it, big time even.
Simply because when we reached a point where everyone could clearly conclude that Windows 8 wasn't really taking off Microsoft remained in denial. Worse: they first started to blame their entire surroundings ("The vendors haven't been trained enough", "The customers don't understand it", "The resellers don't put enough effort into it"), while continuously waving away any criticism. But it got even get worse than this: how about sharing sales figures as a form of proof how well Windows 8 was selling, while everyone could easily conclude that we were looking at figures which would have been made anyway, one way or the other (Windows 8 gets bundled with new PC's after all).
If Microsoft would have been open with their audience from the get go then I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have gotten as much comments as they got now. There's nothing wrong with taking some pride in your work, not even if many others don't seem to like it. Just don't try to pretend the product is better than it actually is, because that is going to haunt you in the end.
I'm quite the C64 fan, for me it was one of the first real "homecomputers" which I owned and I sure spend years on it. It was awesome. As such it should be no surprise that I have several models lying around the house; the new "flat" design with the new SID chip, two or three of the old "bread basket" models, datasette, 1541, etc.
But the thing is; in my opinion nothing beats the original. That's also one of the reasons why I also got some older models apart from my "new" flat model. An opinion backed by others it seems when focussing on the flaws which were in the design.
The reason I'm questioning all this is because there doesn't seem to be a shortage or anything if you want to get one yourself. When I check out "Marktplaats", a Dutch trading website comparable to eBay, then I get approx. 150 results when looking for the Commodore 64 (link to Marktplaats.nl search results). E 75,- for the machine and several games, right down to the print plate, advertisement for a repair serivce, joysticks, the VIC20, the original matrix printer, etc, etc.
When checking the international eBay website I get almost 4000 different results.
So looking at the fund raising idea from within this context I have to agree with the harsh verdicts. My personal take on this is simple: Why would you want to recreate it when there's still so much original material available out there?
If you want a C64 yourself al you have to do is check the wanted advertisements, choose and pick one up.
Nothing beats the original in my opinion.
Its not my favourite interface and I even use most of it with Outlook 2010 instead of the web interface. I also can't appreciate that even despite all these changes they still haven't fixed the limitation of not being able to synchronize todo items between a Windows phone and Outlook on the desktop (all of that is also going through Hotmail / Outlook website).
But at the very least it's not as annoying and intrusive as Skype is. This week it finally happened: I can no longer logon using MSN messenger but only with Skype. Ironically enough I can still use my Windows phone to logon to MSN, which makes me believe that they're not going to shut it down completely.
Even so, I'm done with it and somewhat looking for another messaging option because I can't stand Skype and tend to stay clear from that in a 10km radius (which I assume is impossible, but you can't blame me for trying ;-)). I can't appreciate a program which immediately begins to try and persuade me to buy into a subscription or get "Skype credits". When I check my own profile? I get one half of the screen fully dedicated to a subscription model, even though I don't have nor want one. Why I should buy into a "pro" account, how I can upgrade, what interesting features I'll get, that kind of crap.
I'm quite unhappy with Skype and the only reason it's still sitting on my PC is because Messenger automatically installed it. Most likely I'll dump both somewhere next week and look for something less intrusive.
Microsoft is already walking this path with their Office 365 subscription model. But as long as the common Office products bring in money then I'd say Microsoft would be a fool to whack that simply in an attempt to gross in more money. I doubt even they are that stupid (but I have been proven wrong before on those opinions, so who knows...).
Personally I think Microsoft couldn't afford a move like this, not right now while they admitted that their latest "flagship" has indeed entered some rough weather.
Well, to me that is. People who wear glasses will often try other solutions (think contacts) so that they don't have to wear them any more whereas people who don't (have to) wear glasses will now gladly wear them because it's "cool".
Maybe this is a good thing for the people who actually need to wear glasses and get picked on because of that... "Nah, this isn't merely something I need to be able to see, it's the next beta of the Google glass. Now stop pestering me you ignoraniant" :-)
Now that Microsoft bigwigs have realised that cramming their desktop operating system into a touchscreen tablet format was unwise
No they haven't. The problem was that they crammed a mobile platform onto the desktop and expected people to embrace it. You're now twisting the events around.
This is of course not saying that this didn't happen; but that moment is already past us a long time ago. Its when Microsoft decided to dump Windows Mobile 6 and redesign the whole OS which resulted in Windows Phone 7. You know: Windows Mobile which included a start menu, making many people wonder why you'd need that if all you wanted to do was to start programs?
I also think its important to realize that there's nothing wrong with Metro perse. The problem is that Microsoft thinks of Metro as an all-base-covering solution while it's not. I honestly enjoy and appreciate Metro on my Windows Phone 7.5 (I didn't care for the upgrade to the WP8-like environment), but I hate it when I start seeing live tiles on my PC in a place I only want to use to (quickly) get access to my programs.
I also think the design of Metro is actually quite slick, also from a developers perspective. The sandbox model can really help to enhance security.
But its simply not a proper design for the desktop. You can't expect people to mimic a hand swipe with a mouse cursor, because under normal circumstances a click with the right mouse button would be used.
However, it seems the days of Microsoft "domination" are really behind us it seems. People don't blindly buy into stuff because it's new, also because they don't have to. Once Microsoft starts realizing this small issue who knows what could happen...
I'm honestly hoping for a ground breaking Windows 9 sort of environment. I disliked Vista but loved 7. I'm sure Microsoft can pull it off again, if they really try.
The initial statements coming from Redmond that "the vendors didn't get it", which also included members of the Partner network like myself, was something I didn't quite appreciate.
Now, I realize it's all business and when looking at my position I get what I pay for (I have a free subscription to the Partner network, simply because my company isn't big enough (yet >:-) ) to justify a subscription plan). But even so this doesn't feel right; when it comes to Windows 7, Office 2010 (and partly 2013), .NET and their server line of products I'm actually quite a believer. Its why my company often sells these kind of products.
But the thing is; I'm not a fan because we're talking Microsoft. I'm a fan because this stuff works for me, and I think it can work for several of my customers as well. Within this context I'm not a Windows 8 fan, at all. Its a completely flawed design in my opinion.
And what does Microsoft do? Basically tells the world that "I didn't get it".
I realize it's all business, I shrug and move on. But how many actual fans of their products who also didn't like Windows 8 have they pissed off with this? People who like Windows because it's Windows and also got stuck in the awkwardness that was Metro?
Fool me once (Vista); shame on you. Fool me twice (Win8); shame on me. Fool me three times?
The whole POINT of cloud computing is to force a rental system on users.
No, its not.
The whole point of cloud computing is to provide redundancy in a way which is impossible to achieve when working with hardware-only solutions. Just because these <del>idiots</del> marketing people continue to turn it into a commercial slugfest doesn't mean that this is what cloud computing is all about. FAR from it.
"Well the cost is in one's time, even for a home user. There is a measurable "cost" in terms of the hours taken to to a major software install - even if no money changes hands."
I agree with that to be honest, but that's also because I run my own business. Its easy if you end your working day and then can basically do whatever you want; the pay check will be in the mail (so to speak) at the end of the month. It becomes a bit more of an issue if you have to pay for your own time (which sometimes means that you're still working around 2am because you're trying to get a job done as quickly as possible).
But there is justification here. As others mentioned already it's not so much a collection of new features which gets presented here; with Debian it's more of a "re-evaluation" (as I like to call it) of the whole distribution and a check up on how things (still) work together. If there have been any issues in the past with package dependencies and such which would have risked a big impact then these are the moments those can be addressed.
Then there's also the more obvious issue of upgrades. Stable is just that: stable. So it often uses older (but still supported) versions of the software. But even with open source environments there comes a time where people need to move on; stuff changes, things work differently and older versions get obsoleted. And that is what this is also about: newer software versions which have proven to be stable will be implemented. Even if that sometimes means that there are only minor changes.
It's not only about features, with Debian stability and continuity are also key issues.
As said: I agree with you on your time = money comment. But also realize that the "oldstable" release will be supported where security updates are concerned for approx. one more year. So there's plenty of room to plan for an upgrade.
But if this model doesn't work for you, then well... Maybe it's time to look into other models. The BSD environments for example strictly separates 3rd party software from the base system so that upgrading also becomes easier. But just as with Debian a release of the base system is approx. supported for two years, where it actually becomes often more strongly advised to consider an upgrade.
Then there's always the option to go commercial and look into stuff like RedHat Enterprise Linux. Or their free counterpart CentOS.
Which is another issue to keep in mind here: if you don't like this model then there are plenty of other Linux (or more Unix-like) environments to chose from.
In the end keep well in mind that you get much more than you paid for. Never underestimate the time and effort that goes into keeping an OS like this supported.
I think this only serves one purpose: to allow more advertising and other crap to be pushed down our throats. Of course I could be uber cynical here due to my experiences with uTorrent; at one time the advertising and other "toolbars" became so obnoxious and awkward that I dug up a previous installer, went back to the previous version and immediately turned off the option for updates all together.
And so I'm still looking into something less intrusive for Windows, but can't really be bothered that much because the Torrent protocol hasn't changed at all and as such the older version simply works.
Microsoft are forced to shoehorn old features into new versions because some people are so frightened of change.
Hardly. There is a huge difference between a change which actually enhances the whole workflow and a change which got implemented because of the change. That is the nature of this problem here.
Microsoft opted to change the desktop in such ways that it would be fully optimized for touch screens, apparently not (willing to?) realizing that when it comes to a non-touchable environment the change is actually a huge setback when it comes to functionality. That is the main issue.
Metro is a very solid environment which is in my opinion well designed when looking at mobile computing. But the problem is that it doesn't provide the same functionality as the start menu in Windows 7 provides. Think about jump lists (to quickly start a recently used file) or the "run as administrator" options. Those have become extremely awkward in Windows 8.
I know many people didn't use the start menu to its full potential but only to blindly click stuff to, well, start it. These are often the same kinds of people who would easily fill their entire desktop with icons so that they could quickly start a program.
But the problem is that there are also plenty of people who do know how to use the start menu to its full potential. And judging from the very weak acceptance of Windows 8 it's my believe that those form the majority.
Don't treat a desktop as a mobile environment and don't treat a mobile environment as a desktop. That's the main problem at hand here. First Microsoft went one way (a start menu on the iPaq PDA for example) which was often extremely awkward, now they're merely going the other way around.
At least they don't have tentacles, because then it could become a totally different hentai-alike story where the Japanese could only dream off ;-)
That's because you're reading other things in "believer" than he actually meant. He didn't mean a true believer in the sense that one should try and keep true to the story as it was laid out in the first original 3 movies. No, I think he's a true believer that the franchise as a whole still has enough spunk in it left to generate a nice steady revenue.
Where people still could use a bit of their own fantasy and imagination.
From the same article: "This means that if you leave your device in someone else's hands, and it has an unlocked bootloader, with just a minute alone they can access anything you have stored on it.".
So how do we unlock the bootloader? That is explained in the same article, and well.. I consider the explanation itself more then enough to label this a "non issue":
"The most common command to unlock the bootloader is simply "unlock". On most devices that provide this command, a menu will be displayed that explains that by unlocking the bootloader your warranty will be voided, and that it is disrecommended by the manufacturer. It also has a side effect: it will delete all of your personal data stored on the device (I mention this in more detail later, and explain why).".
For me it's simple.. Leave your device in the hands of a stranger and its contents are in jeopardy, this is the same as with any other mobile device. But the other thing, as can be read here, in order to make this exploit work attackers don't only need physical access but unlock the bootloader as well, which effectively removes all your data. Yet isn't the common idea of an exploit to get their hands on your data first?
So; don't leave your device with someone you don't trust and all is well. Yet if you happen to do so anyway and they are going to try something nasty chances are high they won't be able to get to your private stuff. Mission accomplished.
Why not try another article when there are some real exploits to report? At the very least something remote (here's assuming Glass uses wifi and such).
That's not the AC talking but his teacher, as he clearly shared. And its not uncommon too; I still remember the stories that when my father was still in school several teachers would predict / forecast the coming of a new ice age.
Amazing, people who own a certain brand of car are also very inclined to stick with the brand whenever they need a new one. Of course that is something most people already knew for years ;-)
I wouldn't get my hopes up. In fact; I think its for a well known reason why this happened to be a Dutchie who appeared a bit more in the spotlight. Because chances are high he'll get away with community service, or even less.
You see; our district attorneys (I believe that's the right verb, or I've been watching too much Law & Order) don't exactly hold a good reputation on this matter. Only last week did we get the news how an arrested and convicted rapist saw the jail time which was demanded by the DA cut almost in half because that same DA had neglected the whole proceedings for almost 10 years. Judge ordered that the 'suspect' didn't have to suffer for the incompetence of the DA office.
That's about the situation here, so I really wouldn't get my hopes up that he has a rough time ahead.
"Of course most importantly, every time you purchase something from Amazon, which most of us were doing anyway, Canonical gets a cut from Amazon's end. If you like your free OS, surely that is an easy, free, zero-effort and non-obtrusive way of helping pay for it?"
You make a good argument IMO but there are also flaws within your reasoning. Because lets face it: without Debian there wouldn't be an Ubuntu. Most of the real work isn't done by Canonical at all, but with all the volunteers which maintain the Debian packages, which also eventually find their way into Ubuntu.
As such your argument could also be easily turned around: how much of Canonical's cut finds its way back into Debian? If Canonical likes their free OS so much to build a whole company on top of it, surely its also an easy zero-effort to help pay for it?
Yet somehow I don't see that happening.
With that in mind I think people have every right to complain or share their discomfort. The OS isn't free afterall; it has a pricetag attached. You either pay through advertisement, or invest some of your own time to de-install the whole lot, time costs money too you know.
IMO there's more to this than merely "helping pay for the OS".
I think they're only sorry that they failed to catch the real bombers. Because anyone could see up front where witch hunts like this could lead to; the risk of accusing and thus damaging innocent people is always a very realistic and dangerous aspect. That's why such "hunting efforts" are best stopped before they fully take off. But no...
Shit like this keeps happening time and time again, and when the damage is done they're always "sorry" and simply carry on with their lives. Yet the people who got the worst part of the accusations will most likely continue to suffer from them for several months if not years to come. Yet that small detail more than often never finds its way into the main news because well... A few people getting threatened on a continuous basis is hardly news worthy after all. Celebrities have to deal with that shit all the time, so who cares?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not questioning the main motivations here. But the people who started this whole ordeal really should have known better up front in my opinion.
"Amazon Web Services (AWS) Adam Selipsky has told an event in Sydney, Australia, that private clouds aren't really clouds."
Translation: AWS' Adam Selipsky has told an event in Sydney that private clouds aren't making Amazon any money, and therefor also better be avoided.
Why not focus your energy on the powers that would actually use or wield these?
Or put differently: focus on the heart of the problem instead of the symptoms; it gets you much better results. Of course; "protest against a future SkyNet" sells so much better...
Don't change or enhance the product. No; put resources into renaming it, that's bound to attract more customers and make the whole thing appear a lot better.
Guys, this isn't the 90's anymore. JBoss is (was?) a very solid application server, but it could never really beat (for example) Tomcat. And I don't see this helping in any bit. Just check the website yourself: "JBoss has a new name, and it's even @#$%ing faster!".
Each to his own, but hollow marketing like that makes me simply click the close button and forget all about it.
First I have to strongly disagree with the authors accusations that Microsoft is "contradicting their own statement" when it comes to privacy, simply because they make it known that they collect information such as an IP address and the time and date you enter the survey.
Because anyone who has a little bit of understanding how this whole thing actually works will know that nearly every frickin' website out there does exactly the same thing. How do you think people generate website statistics? Well, usually by letting programs such Webaliazer or AWStats go over the logfile(s) of the webserver. Any idea what you can find in there? More than merely an IP address and date and time I can tell you that; you'll also see what browser people are using, you can roughly deduct their geographical location, check the time/date and even determine what OS is being used.
The main difference as I see it is that Microsoft makes this clearly known, and then you "attack" them over it, how stupid is that?
I think you'll be surprised.
There are 3 times when Microsoft may disclose information about Codeplex visitors and its also very easy to find when:
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't be critical here. But I am saying that compared to some of the other companies out there Microsoft is in my opinion the least intrusive when it comes to privacy concerns. Of course I fully agree if you now raise the other possibility: "Or they simply haven't been caught yet like Google has".
True. But here's the major difference: should they get "caught" then their legal disclaimers and documents give you an awefull lot of ground to sue their asses off. While "other company" disclaimers are usually very vague when you over them; they usually always end the same: the company in question cannot be directly held accountable for....
These privacy statements are completely different. They don't make (contradicting) open claims, they make solid promises.
My main gripe with the new Office is the new interface and the way they changed several usability features, I simply can't bring my self to liking it even though I'm a die-hard 2010 user.
It's simple; the new Word or Excel 2013 gives me an headache. I can't stand the all-bright, vaguely coloured and extremely NOISY interface. There's no longer a clear separation between your work space and the Ribbon section above. Totally unworkable for me since its too distracting. At the very least make sure there's a clear separation like there always was. Even Office 2003 (pre-Ribbon time) used clear separation and easily spotted sections.
I also dislike the way Office starts. When I fire up Word I do so because I need to start working on something. If I need to work on a document otoh. I simply open that. Usually through the use of the jumplists in the start menu.
Yet when you start Word 2013 you'll first have to go through the start screen, you can't make Office skip this. So hit escape to make it go away and you can start on your work. Absolutely annoying to me since the times where I had to use the backstage view after starting Word (or Excel) can be counted on one hand.
And yeah; I know this start screen is a detail. But that's as far as I got with Office 2013; the interface didn't exactly make it appealing for me to check it out some more to see if there were any other options which I might have liked a lot better in comparison to 2010. It did the total opposite; so after the start screen ticked me off I called it a day and didn't bother any more. I'm very happy with Office 2010 and I see absolutely no reason what so ever to upgrade to this migraining catastrophy.
"What really gets up my nose about FSF is that they feel entitled to redefine, and limit, the use terms like freedom."
Uhm, don't shoot the messenger ?
The FSF only provides the means, its fully up to the author(s) themselves to use or ignore a certain license.
...don't make it as intrusive as Google then I'm all fine with it.
Google keeps nagging that they want my cellphone number because its "very important" that they have that; without it they can't text me "important information to unlock my account" should I ever lose the password.
I don't perse agree. Sure, Linux has seen quite an increase feature wise, the overall acceptance is also pretty good which makes it much easier to setup or rent a Linux server and finally; because of all the setup standards and such there are some pretty awesome tools out there which can really help a company get to its feet (here's looking at you Webmin (link to.. you know ;-)).
Thing is... More and more do I get the feeling its also getting dumbed down. Which is cool, more people using it and you can't say there isn't a free choice here. Well....
So I'm with a hosting provider which has some awesomely features such as console access for every VPS you hire. Premium, Standard, Ultraluxe, Tiny ? It has console access, admins will understand the importance here (done through KVM & kernel virtualization). The best part here; I can use a browser and either opt for HTML5 or Java based access.SO far still cool.
And so I work with CentOS 6, need to resort to the CentOS 5 manual, (5.2 while 5.9 is the latest) but who needs manuals... It seems I do because you see; by default the installer resorts to X. And X has an issue with resolutions thus easily exceeding my used 1024x786 on this machine. With my HTML5 session this results in an unsizable window where most controls fall outside my screen. Not cool.
Resorting to the Java client fixes that, I now get scrollbars which help. But now I can't fill out some partial info (say the first digits of my IP address), flip to another window to check up on something and check back again because it will be extremely hard to re-activate the window; X goes a bit crazy.
The answer is obviously a text based install. Yeah. I had that part figured out myself. So you start in text mode anyway; cool, it seems its zmart. Yet then all of a sudden you end up with a graphical display, and its sure no Grub bootscreen. Long story cut short; you need to break the actual boot process yourself, then manually start the text installer. And of course the manual is pretty vague here.
Sure; its not all bad news. Absolutely not; this is a very particular example from a very particular distribution. There are also others which (IMO) are much up to the challenge. Take for example Debian for that matter.
Even so... Learning about integrated and fully usable ZFS, an out of the box process virtualization feature which strongly reminds me of "Zones" (running a virtual instance of the same OS, but this time locked to a certain point) as well as a text installer by default has so far got me to check out a completely different server environment. I also like the fact that due to their more "lose" licensing demands I even get to see commercial software pop up in their software tree. Sure; now I need to use my brains since you can't assume everything in there is free as in beer. Who cares? I don't since I know what I want ;-)
The icon says it all :-)
One has to wonder; are these recent vulnerabilities or does this also include stuff from, I dunno, 2010 or so ?
As to why I think Microsoft has used a completely wrong approach with promoting their Windows Phone.
The only commercials you get are Nokia based, in almost every advertisement or even official Microsoft article you'll see Nokia phones whenever the topic is at WP.
Yet guess what; Samsung also makes Windows Phones; I really like my Samsung Omnia W. And although I'm still not too sure if my next phone is going to be a Windows Phone (we'll know next year) I do know this; its going to be another Samsung.
...that is, if I'll actually get a new phone next year ;)
When I check out both Amazon and Azure I always get confused (sort of) when checking their price model. In some way I can agree that it looks fair, after all; you only pay for what you're using and its cut down to fair amounts (pay per GB based on maximum amount (first 1TB, Next 49TB, etc.) or when it comes to instances you pay per hour based on the instance (due to the article I'm focussing on Azure here, but the same goes for Amazon obviously).
Problem is that its very hard to keep track of it all so in a way you're depending on their way of measurement. I had this with my previous hosting provider; one month the bills were normal, then all of a sudden they billed me with for extra traffic while my stats told me otherwise. After 2 months I wrote them an e-mail about it and what do you know? Obviously the error was with me, according to them, but in the mean time I got normal bills again 4 months straight. Yeah, right....
I think that in many cases you'll be better of using a 'regular' hosting provider (if available of course) than these cloud based services. First they sell the name "cloud" while in fact its not as cloudy (redundant) as it should / could be (as we've seen in the not too recent past) and in the longer run I get the feeling you'll end up paying more in comparison.
Here in Holland you can get a 4 Core Xeon, 8GB memory, 300GB storage, 10TB traffic/month, 1 - 3 IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, SMS monitoring and 1 snapshot for approx. E 50,- / month. When using a free OS (Linux, BSD) then there are no extra charges, for Windows you'll have to cover licensing too (approx. E 7,50 / month).
Azure virtual machine? 1 core with 1.75 GB memory starts at approx. E 49,90 / month (E 0,0671 / hour).
Amazon? Well, that shows another issue; the trouble you need to undertake before you finally get a good overview of solid prices. So I'm finally at the EC2 pricing page (link to Amazon): Standard on-demand instance, "Medium" : $0.120 / hour. Say one month: $89,28 (24hrs / 31 days), or E 68,-.
So; what's "Medium" ?
For that you need to go to another page; the EC2 instance types overview (link to amazon) where you'll learn that "Medium" is actually: 3.75Gb memory, 1 virtual core with 2 computing units, 410Gb instance storage, moderate performance (?).
You don't get rough numbers but at the end of the page its briefly explained yet still vague: "For many applications, low or moderate I/O performance is more than enough. However, for those applications requiring greater or more consistent I/O performance, you may want to consider instances with high I/O performance.".
And then we're told into how cool high performance is ("High I/O instances can deliver in excess of 100,000 random read IOPS and as many as 80,000 random write IOPS for high performance NoSQL ") but what about moderate and low ? Well, I guess those aren't interesting enough to share the details.
I also strongly get the feeling that both Amazon and Microsoft doesn't really expect (hope?) people to dive in so deeply but instead solely focus themselves on virtual low prices instead.
But then again... Looking back at my regular hosting example above; E 57,50 / month for a Windows server one can also state that I'm paying E 0,0772 per hour. I pay "much more" than Azure (E 0,0671 / hour) but also get more in return.
Sure; I can't terminate per hour / day but only on a per month basis. Thing is; how often do you need to terminate your servers on a per hour basis? When your money is running out perhaps? But like; wasn't that something you couldn't have seen coming ?
If you're a Microsoft reseller you want to be part of their Partner Network (link to MS Partner program). The best part here is that small businesses can join free of charge but if you need or want more, you'll have to invest in a subscription. Even so, there are several advantages (link to UK based Partner program page) to be found, and I'm not merely talking about licenses for their business products (Office, SharePoint, Exchange, etc.).
A Gold Partner not only pays quite a bit for his subscription, one could assume they also tend to ship quite a bit of Microsoft software. Yet Microsoft didn't have to think long before they dumped Gold partner Comantra (El Reg link) from their program after accusations that this firm was (phone) scamming UK customers.
So... pardon me for not agreeing here.
Believe it or not; there are some people who actually truly believe that if you use a browser plugin or video player such as VLC to record a video stream then it's illegal. On a not-to-be-mentioned official support forum I once saw a post get removed because I hinted at this possibility (but in all honesty; the whole subject was also bordering offtopic-ness).
The point being though; if some people have apparently already degenerated to this level "It's illegal to..." then I can easily see this work. Behind a nice smoke screen of course.
For the record; we're talking about a video link which anyone can access, without the need to register, to agree to something or anything of the sort. You click the link and watch the video. Problem being is that $company behind said video's sells the right to store them offline.
i stopped wearing watches when mobile phones came about.
Same here. Its much easier on the wrist too, not to mention never having to take it off and on again whenever you're working on something where it might get stuck. I also never looked back.
Still, it is one of those classic "if it works for me it doesn't have to work for other people" kind of thing.
Actually, fellow WordPress users could consider to resort to only 1 step: download & install Better WP Security (link to plugin page).
When I started using WP the first thing I did was rename the admin account; I do that on all environments I use (including my Win7 desktop and my Windows servers). And then I discovered this critter which also checks for this and a whole lot more...
It will help you enforce stronger passwords, rename the admin account, perform intrusion detection (x number of wrong login attempts results in banning the IP address (or an even wider range)), but also help you with suggesting how you could make the thing even more secure.
It goes pretty far, even a bit too far for my liking, but even so it's also very honest. Some options ("You should rename the wp-content directory of your site") are very plausible enhancements, but they come with risks since other plugins may depend on that directory being present. And as they should they also warn for that.
From hiding your backend, to logon limitations, intrusion detection right down to a nice log page which will show you how the bad guys tried to gain access.
This is one of those plugins which I consider to be a must-have if you're on WordPress.
And who thought it would be neat to provide us with (pretty high res.) aerial / satellite photo's which could almost identify your wife or girlfriend lying on a beach bench in your own backyard in her bikini ?
Has everyone already forgotten about Google Earth and how much trouble many individuals had to go through before Google finally allowed the public to apply for blurring of pictures on their Google Earth environment ?
What I see here is the Pot calling the Kettle black, and also a shameless display of sheer arrogance.
"Mentally Ill perhaps?"
Totally desperate seems more plausible to me. The "who cares if I die out there or out here, I'll be dead anyway".
Forced to resign because of a simple opinion.
No, Microsoft can be a really weird bunch but I'm quite positive its the combination of things. First he's an executive, one should be able to expect that those guys know how to share an opinion in a non-insulting manner. Then there's the sheer arrogance of it all, in the end it isn't merely showing but actually radiating.
It's simple; if you make it very clear that you seem totally incapable of even considering the way the other person in a discussion feels like then how the heck are you going to lead your own department? I wouldn't be surprised one bit if that guy doesn't have the foggiest of ideas what's going through the minds of his co workers ("now why would I want to associate with them?"). Not saying this is the case, but he sure makes it look that way.
Forget about looks; I roll my mouse wheel up and down and the whole page moves up and down. Obviously not what I had intended there.