1859 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
Those haven't ever been secure.
Apart from the issue of different available locks (as mentioned by others) there is another aspect to consider. Making a mold from a car lock will be a lot more suspicious than simply trying to pick up electronic signals using a "blackbox".
Or: "Uhm, I lost my keys and the assurance doesn't cover it, so I'm trying to make a duplicate key?"
vs.: "Yeah, coverage is a biatch these days; I can hardly get any signal here, that's why I'm standing so close to your car sir.".
I also wouldn't mind
To see an actor who has done Dr. Who in the past to return once again, for example I personally thought David Tennant played a very good Doctor.
How many companies who are into this stuff due to the hype and not because it simply works for them have thought about the involved risk management. Because when looking at mobile devices such as cellphones I suddenly can't help wonder: "What would happen if the employee quits"?
The reason doesn't really matter here. But if such a co-worker has been bringing and using his own mobile phone then you'd better hope that you either hired a trustworthy / respectable person and / or that you made sure to include a section in the contract what the person can and cannot do with the information he acquired during his job, especially with information which is now stored on his / her phone.
Because what if this person decides to start a company of is at another employer and now decides to use the information on his own hardware to help out his new environment?
I think you're entering a huge grey area here. Because although one could argue that the person is now (ab?)using and profiting from information which isn't specifically theirs, one could also argue that the company involved was also profiting from the person when he or she was using his own equipment for company business, effectively saving the company money.
By the time the searches are rolling in it's too late.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. But then again, unless you're George Lucas of course, then you simply continue to
mess up "improve" your movies before each new DVD release.
It would appear
...as if Microsoft is becoming desperate.
My theory would be that they have invested quite a lot in the whole structure and are hoping to get some of that money back. I think this strategy isn't all that bad. After all: it's often better to make a small amount of profit on a lot of devices ("sales"), than it is to make more profit on something which sells less frequent.
Even so, I can't help wonder if the damage hasn't already been done. Let's face it; even if Windows 8 is quite usable on a tablet or a touch environment, the brand name has already been (heavily) tainted. And Microsoft has also already given in and admitted that it wasn't going as well as they proclaimed.
Then looking at the current rough financial climate: say a computer illiterate wants a tablet. What to get?
A (relative) cheap environment of which Microsoft themselves have already said that it had failed (do you really think those guys would remember that Microsoft was only talking about the desktop? I don't.), OR a slightly more (or less!) expensive device (Samsung?) running on Android which has already been chosen as one of the most popular environments?
You can only spend your money once, especially during these times, so you want to make it count..
Well, don't forget that according to Microsoft those same "user input channels" convinced them that the start menu had to go. Of course the results that followed made many wonder to which audience Microsoft had actually been listening, but even so that was their original story.
The really important question though...
Is if this Halo version is eventually going to be a patience and spider solitaire replacement...
And where whas she...
When Microsoft was pulling away Messenger. A, in my opinion, real innovating service (to some extend of course) in that it could be easily used on both desktop and telephone and was actually a very widely used service. Both for VOIP (like) services as well regular instant messages.
Yet all that had to go in favour of Skype where it seems that the only way to make "full" use of it is if you get yourself a premium subscription or buy into lots of Skype credits. Of course I did the total opposite; the moment Messenger stopped working I removed it and Skype and that was the end of it.
Now I'm looking for a feasible, non-intrusive, replacement. The webclient (Outlook.com) is somewhat usable, but not just quite a good setup.
What do 1.4 BEELLION transistors get you?
A headache thinking about the nearly endless switching capabilities.
Boooring, where is CDE?
First of all you hit a nerve with me by mentioning SunOS. Where you actually meant Solaris because that was the all-in-one operating enviroment, SunOS didn't include the X environment per definition. In fact; SunOS sort of got replaced by Solaris, up to version 4 it was actually based on BSD.
"Look at screenshots of long-dead early GUIs from the 1980s, such as SunOS or Smalltalk, and they don't even have features like menu bars or buttons on window title-bars at all"
Apart from the statement above Solaris *had* menu bars, if CDE was used. There were at least two graphical environments to chose from, by default OpenWindows, but as a counterpart we had CDE, which didn't provide one but several menu bars in the tray panel, one which inspired Xfce later on.
Don't cut Solaris short like this, please...
Needless to say but this undermines your statements. A statement which is flawed too:
"RISC OS already had its Icon Bar, but that doesn't have an app launcher or a way to switch windows."
And how exactly could Windows 95 switch Windows? Or are you now confusing windows with virtual desktops here, because Risc OS had plenty of options to use several windows side by side, in a way comparable to GEM.
Oh that's right; GEM... Even usable on CP/M and somewhat comparable to a mixture of Windows 3.1 and OpenWindows, which you claim wasn't prior to Windows 95.
Then how come that looking back at GEM reminds me heavily of a Windows hybrid?
I do agree with you on one thing though; it really seems as if the main desktop managers copied Windows. But there were plenty of environments which didn't, Xfce for example (before it became "cool" to use it, you know what I'm referring to).
Don't be fooled!
This is all an elaborated scheme to get you guys drugged up so that you will easily give in to Windows 8. Sales go up, upper brass gets pleased and this dope gets his job back ;)
When people think bad of you..
Promise them golden mountains.
That is what's happening here. Roaming charges have been a topic of debate for years now. But here and now things have suddenly changed so dramatically that a change is required?
Surely this has nothing to do with the fact that the opinion on one Europe has hit rock bottom recently?
It's not the stuff you do
It's the way you deal with it. And that isn't determined by your own (sexual) fantasies and or habbits but simply by the person(age) you really are. I guess this is way too cliched for these kinds of studies, in my opinion because there's little money to be made by stating the obvious, but it's simply the way it is.
Just because a woman is into bondage doesn't automatically make her a sex-crazed femme fatal nor does it mean that the only way you can get along with her is to tie her up.
The only thing to keep in mind is that you also can't rule these things out. Sometimes you /are/ dealing with a (sexual) disoriented person. But its not his or her hobbies which define that.
In my opinion researches like these are no better than the well known "violence on TV is bad because it corrupts children", while totally overlooking the small yet important factor that the real issue is the way those children deal with it. And that's something normally taught by the parents.
As said, IMO this isn't different.
Of course; in the end this whole research is flawed by design. Because let's go over something obvious once again: most people are not very comfortable talking about their sexual desires or fantasies. Doesn't that fact alone indicate that if you start a research into this matter you'll automatically get answers which only reflect a small portion of the people involved?
When you look at it it's actually pretty stupid...
When you install Windows 7 on a PC you'll have, well, Windows 7 obviously. In all it's glory.
When you install it on a laptop on the other hand you too have Windows 7, yet with some extra functionality which is specific for laptop usage. Things like presentation mode, those aren't available on the PC (but can be activated by hacking the registry).
It makes me wonder why Microsoft didn't extend on this? Microsoft obviously wants one solution to rule all markets. I don't think it's smart, but alas.
And Metro as a stand alone environment isn't all that bad IMO, I use it on my phone and actually like it there. But it becomes totally different on a desktop (without touch hardware), it's also a reason why I dislike Windows 8 with a passion.
They had an architecture which could provide functionality based on hardware; it really boggles me that they didn't use this for touch based equipment. You know: you work with the classic keyboard / mouse and you get a start menu. You work with a touch screen and you get the Metro start screen.
And for the die hards who have A but also want B: you can hack the registry and tune the stuff yourself.
Microsoft should really learn to give the users what they want (and optionally give them even more) instead of trying to continue to dictate the market what's best for them. Because more and more does it become apparent that if they keep this up then people may actually stop buying into Microsoft desktops alltogether.
Water damage doesn't have to be permanent
This is what I'm missing out on here a bit. Sure; eventually those phones will stop working but it's not due to the water perse; but simply because water isn't an isolator. So al sorts of weird and unwanted connections will be made, eventually resulting in a direct connection on the battery, and that's kinda bad.
But the thing is; this doesn't have to be the end of the phone. Take it apart,dry up the individual components and then let the whole thing dry up for a day or two. Chances are high that it will simply continue working.
And this is the problem, no one knows what SHAME is anymore, or they don't care!
You mean like those politicians who will easily organize a going away party for 100 people, estimated costs are approximately E75.000,-, even when the country they claim to be serving is in a very rough financial climate, to such an extend that taxes had to be raised and government spendings (where it matters of course) had to be cut.
Because that is the other side of the medal; people need to pay taxes but also see that taxpayer money wasted and thrown away as if it was nothing.
This isn't saying I don't agree with you perse, but it works both ways.
Well, it should be kept under wraps a bit but it's going to be a huge feature in the upcoming version of SQL server. Then it will fully support several stages of fuzzy logic. All in a wild attempt to bring a more natural and reliable feel to the SQL server.
The beauty is that it will far exceed the previous comments of "it will work, or not...", with the new fuzzy logic module enabled you can be sure that it might work, or not. But there isn't a 50-50 percent chance of things failing or succeeding; the chances go MUCH deeper.
Although the module is best used on the Enterprise management level because these people know what they're talking about when it comes to chance calculations, it's also perfectly usable for home servers. Now you can finally have the best excuse as to why your website isn't working all the time: "Because the evil Microsoft enforced fuzzy logic on my SQL server!".
No one will believe you, but you have to agree that it sounds cool!
What you're experiencing here is merely the first stage of the plan.
"> What does the concept of victory mean?
Same as it's always meant - to be able to impose your will on others."
Careful there; you make an awful lot of assumptions here. Because 'victory' could just as well mean successfully defending yourself against an oppressor.
Each to his own, but I'd rather not ignore the webmaster of the Doctor Who website when he's sharing new information about the cybermen ;-) I also don't think he's clueless.
"I can understand, sort of, why some dumbass hackers would get off just defacing something but why didn't the SEA do something that furthers their ends?"
Who says they didn't?
It's the same reason why you should wipe your system clean after a break-in: you can never be 100% sure what the intruder(s) did or didn't do.
For all we know this could just as easily have been a diversion of some sort.
"To make it better, CIOs and IT admins need to rethink the way that they approach protecting their networks from hackers and other miscreants."
I think companies should hire better qualified personal and if they actually have those on the payroll also start listening to them.
The main problem in many big companies ("Enterprises") are the sometimes endless layers of managers. In certain cases the management layer has actually grown into an entity of its own. With that I'm referring to Enterprise environments who would hire managers solely based on management skills even though the person in question either completely lacks any in-depth understanding of his department or simply doesn't have enough understanding to fully understand what his team is telling him.
Such a person will more than often make decisions which make him look good. Or put differently: decisions which are most likely not to cause any members of the layer above him to become displeased (or worse) with him (put differently: his department). Even though, especially when talking ICT, sometimes such decisions have to be taken.
"We need to upgrade the firewall today, there have been some flaws found in the operating system so we need to upgrade the kernel. It will require a reboot, so the website(s) will be down for a short moment".
"Ok, but we have a big project coming up this week. Can you guarantee that the website won't be down for more than 5 minutes? No? Then I think we should postpone the upgrade to next week, then it's a much better time. Especially because we won't get as much visitors to the website as we will have this week".
And what do you know; the admin who suggested the upgrade simply couldn't explain well enough that we were talking about a zero-day exploit which could allow 3rd parties to gain access to the server. The manager didn't understand enough from his department to inform about the risks involved, so that he could weigh the risk of a longer downtime to the risk of not upgrading the OS then and there.
The result? Well; you'll be the judge of that. Depending on the flaw and the increase in traffic they could obviously also attract people who might try to exploit said flaw. Or not...
Even so; in my opinion it's issues like these which are the real culprit. The reason I'm pointing to enterprise (-like) environments should be obvious: in many cases when we're talking about break ins and such these are usually involved.
Heck; this could even go as far as an enterprise(-like) environment which provides (hosting) services for smaller companies. In my case there are some very strict rules to follow, which was one of the reason's I started hosting with my current provider: if they detect that you run your own DNS server and it can do recursive lookups for everyone they preserve the right to block said server. If they detect that you run your own MTA and it provides an open proxy then the same rules apply.
How many hosting companies (once again: talking about Enterprise (-like) environments) will simply let it go because they don't consider it their problem ("the customer is responsible for his own server")? Even though enforcing such rules could prevent a lot of Internet "casualties"...
I'm a bit surprised to learn that they haven't improved hardly anything when it comes to the migration or conversion process.
Because although I'm currently very happy with my Outlook 2010 environment I still shudder at the actual process of converting my Thunderbird environment to Outlook 2010, that wasn't easy at all.
And now it seems the same applies to 365, which I honestly consider to be a failure. Especially if you take into consideration that popular software such as Thunderbird is open source, therefore people and companies can easily check the way it stores it's e-mail. Better yet: even if you don't want to, the format used is (to my understanding) very similar to the mbox format, with the exception that they're also using an index or database.
But no... As you said; Outlook 2010 can handle IMAP, but you can't simply tell it to import your Thunderbird settings or point it to an mbox format mailbox and tell it to convert this to it's native PST format.
And yes; I know that there are a dozen software packages out there which can do this for you, that's really not the point here. In my opinion Microsoft should have implemented some sort of solution themselves as well. At the very least to make it easier (and thus more appealing!) to convert! At least they should have created some kind of PowerShell script.
Either way; as said I still remember my conversion. 5 different e-mail accounts; 1 business, 2 Hotmail accounts (business & private), one private blog account and the account provided by my Internet Provider (which I use the least). I ended up exporting all the e-mail from ThunderBird to mbox, uploaded that to my mailserver and with a nice Perl script (mboxtomaildir) I could implement the whole thing and make it accessible using Dovecot.
Then I setup an account to point Outlook to this temporary mail account and within Outlook moved all my e-mail messages from this place to the official account I setup.
So picture my surprise to read that basically Microsoft hasn't changed a thing with their latest 365 environment. This is really not the way to motivate people to start using Outlook. In fact; the process alone has often made me advice ThunderBird to some of my customers. Simply because moving to an Outlook environment would at least take one hour for the conversion itself (probably a little less, but I normally charge by the hour).
Seems a bit late
Whenever I need publically recognized certificates I always turn to GoDaddy. Partly because of the price, but also because they really seem trustworthy to me; I came to that conclusion ever since GoDaddy started a global (company-wide) certificate revoke and re-issuing for all certificates which were made using Debian's OpenSSL; all because of the Debian OpenSSL disaster several years back.
That move had to cost them money, I'm very sure of that, but even so they still did it. And there are many certificate selling companies out there which didn't bother at all...
But the thing is: GoDaddy has been requiring 2048bit keys to be used for several years now. SO I can't help thinking that Google seems to be a little late to this 2048bit key party.
WiFi can be dangerous no matter what.
It's reasons like this why I'm always turning off WiFi the very moment I need to do something more serious with my phone like checking bank records or writing an important (not private perse) e-mail. I have a dataplan, so I can use the Net basically unlimited with my phone subscription, but depending on the kind of WiFi connection it's usually a little faster.
Of course according to my surroundings I'm simply being a little paranoid.
But the thing is: If your phone (or other mobile device) is using a (public) WiFi connection then how sure can you be that no one is eves dropping or doing worse? Yet most people I know don't even care to keep this into consideration.
"TIFKAM appears to have been designed by Microsoft in order to follow Microsoft's strategic plans, it seems very difficult to believe that many actual objectively thinking users were consulted during it's developement."
Oh, but it isn't, Microsoft actually consults its users all the time. If there's one thing Microsoft does "right" (sort off) it's providing a platform for their users to share their opinions on the matter. And for their entire range of products too; from Windows (through their Windows blog) right down to their development products, for example through the Visual Studio UserVoice site.
What does seem unbelievable though is that Microsoft actually pays any attention to all the feedback they've been getting.
There are some exceptions, but even those show how stubborn Microsoft actually is. For example; while a regular suggestion for Visual Studio 2012 ("VS2012") gets approximately a few hundred votes (500 - 600) the suggestion to bring back colours to the interface quickly grossed in a few thousand during the first week. Yet only after approx. eight thousand votes did someone at Microsoft suddenly wake up and considered to write a theme editor module for VS2012 which allowed users to change the colour scheme as they deemed fit. They also added a few more themes apart from the default 2 (which were called "dark" and "light"). At this moment the suggestion in question has gotten thirteen thousand votes and the number still rises.
Microsoft is consulting their users all right, the only problem is that they're totally ignoring what is being said.
I'm probably one of the few here but I didn't quite enjoy the Spiderman movies, at all. And it's for the same reason why I didn't like many comics which were based on famous (animated) movies back in the days when I was a kid: the storyline often diverts from the main environment that it becomes "different". Sometimes these changes are subtle, sometimes they're huge.
I think that back in the days they should have considered making animation movies out of all this while making sure you keep true to the story.
Quite frankly the only Spiderman series I did heavily enough (enough to buy the DVD sets for all 5 seasons) was the Animated series (link to Wikipedia). It also introduced some diversions to the main storyline, but none of them would intrude or plain out collide with the spidey character as we knew it.
For this same reason I also favour the X-Men animated series (link to Wikipedia) over the movies, even though I like the X-Men movies, a lot better than the Spidey movies too. I have 1 & 2 on DVD but didn't care at all for the last one. Once again because it heavily diverted from the "main" plot and started to make it look ridiculous in my opinion (Xavier defeated by the Phoenix? Yeah right...).
You guys are just gealous!
Simply because you couldn't come up with this brilliant business strategy which will put the .gif format right back on the map:
- Change pronouncement of product.
It's not a must have (perse)
It's simply how the Suite - as a whole - works together. That is the key point of Office, which is of course also combined with certain software components which manage to stand out to some extend (meaning: even critics of said software will agree that it's pretty usable nonetheless).
But for me (small business use with sometimes big demands) the key points to Office are Visual Basic for Applications ("VBA") which allows to me to program or script specific changes or additions to the environment, the Office API which provides access within VBA to several of the specific Office functions (exporting an opened Word to PDF format and then creating a new e-mail message in Outlook with the previously mentioned PDF file attached? No problem) and finally the Windows assemblies: also known as COM; the Component Object Model.
(very) Easily put: COM makes sure that software programs can register themselves with the operating system (Windows) while providing (if applicable) an API (programming interface) to allow external programs to access their functionality. This is the reason why you could easily access the Apple Quicktime player right from within Word (if both are installed of course). And this model goes extremely deep. From natively installed faxing services to Java webstart right down to VLC (video / media player) and / or Zune.
That model alone allows for some extreme functionality of its own; want to access the Windows clipboard from within a VBA program? No problem... Most importantly to note: all of this is possible out of the box, so without the need for an external programming environment such as Visual Studio.
I think it's this speciality which makes Office so extremely appealing to so many people. It's not merely your average Word processor or Excel spreadsheet; it can also provide a complete development platform of its own where the basic Office-based functionality is obviously provided out of the box.
Personally I think it's this reason (apart from the obvious issue of the original company being Sun) why suites such as OpenOffice and later LibreOffice provide very deep ties into Java, also allowing people to utilize it to write extensions for the entire Suite. It's also a model which surpasses the "simple" macro editor and instead opts for a full blown programming environment. The major issue here though is the interoperability. I haven't tried the latest LibreOffice so my knowledge on this matter is dated, but last I checked on OpenOffice I noticed that the people behind these projects are also making some rapid improvements on these parts, it's most certainly a development to keep an eye out for.
Still, personally I think the free Office suites have some way to go before they can match the interoperability provided by Microsoft Office. But as said: they are coming very close already.
Side note: And when the free suites break this barrier then I think Microsoft will start to get serious problems, because then people are directly eating away at one of their main pillars. And they can do it all for free...
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...
Just for clarity...
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....
Maybe a bit flawed?
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.
At least they're now honest about it...
"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 ;-)
Good article, but...
"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?
In many cases they were asking for it...
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.
Why would you want to recreate it?
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.
At least it doesn't get (too much) in your face.
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.
And why should they?
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.
Its kind of funny...
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" :-)
That's not what happened...
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 only thing which really bothered me...
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 don't trust this...
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.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Review Tough Banana Pi: a Raspberry Pi for colour-blind diehards
- Product round-up Ten Mac freeware apps for your new Apple baby
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'