Just because you can do a thing it doesn't mean you should.
Icon: tape over the mic might not be enough.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"There's nothing wrong with a new OS being different. "
Actually there's a lot wrong with an interface being different without good reason. For avoidance of doubt "ooh - shiny" is not a good reason.
The whole idea of separating interface from implementation is that the implementation can change without affecting the way the entity is used. That applies to GUIs as well as programming interfaces. So the first rule is, don't change the interface. The other rule is, change the implementation if need be but don't break it.
"I've got Windows 10 installed on so many devices and it's rock solid. Granted there have been a few hiccups with dodgy releases via Windows update"
Make your mind up - which is it? Hiccups with dodgy update releases does not amount to rock solid.
Personally, I'd rather stick to a nearly 50 year old operating system. It's not out-dated and it works.
"One might think these were stating the bleedin’ obvious"
No one might not. The bleedin' obvious is "If it costs us money and we can get away without doing it we won't do it". The way to fix IoT security is to make it impossible to get junk into the market place. Make it illegal to sell insecure devices and illegal to connect them to the internet with an obligation on ISPs to enforce the latter. If Joe Punter discovers that the £1 cheaper grey market device bricks his internet connection until he removes it he'll be a bit more careful where he spends his money in future.
"It's difficult to budget for replacements when the gubbermint keeps cutting said budget."
This is the trouble with buggerment budgeting. If you don't spend this year's budget next year's gets trimmed back to match. In this case it's probably "You're still using the old one so you don't need a new one.".
Remember that your laser fax/copier/printer is also a source of contamination. I had a client who provided a reprographics service at a client a couple of hundred miles or so from the main office. Why is lost in the mists of time but recovering after a crash required a floppy. I learned that it was a good idea to take a spare drive if I had to visit, the existing one was always gunged up with toner.
"is for BT to pay less to shareholders and more into the scheme."
Which they are doing and are committed to do for several years. The "more" amounts to several billions. The trouble is they're chasing after the ongoing missed income from the investments they should have made but didn't during the enforced contributions holiday.
"Here is a quick guide to where it all went wrong."
The article linked is about 10 years old (and also seems to have been written as an apologia for Brown). It doesn't include the effect of persistent low interest rates since then. Since the financial crisis nobody has dared put interest rates up so that pension schemes have been suffering from the persistently low annuity rates.
some company final salary pension schemes had so much money in them that they were stopped from taking pension contributions from employees
They were stopped by HMRC who had a rather short term view of things, not a good idea when dealing with pensions. They made estimates of what they thought such pension schemes would need to meet future requirements and ruled anything else would be tax evasion. They were wrong. They assumed interest rates wouldn't fall.
Cue the cursed one again. He gave the BoE the task of managing interest rates aiming for a CPI of 2%. As a lot of stuff in the CPI was going over to manufacturing in China or wherever it stayed low so interest rates fell. That threw out all the calculations HMRC had made because the estimated needs depend on the projected returns from annuities which are tied to interest rates. The fact that housing costs were in RPI but not CPI meant that a blind eye was turned on the housing bubble.
And yet after the eejit was thrown out of office - years too late - he got some nice job in a US university lecturing on how to run an economy without mentioning that he ran one into the ground.
"if they could just sell a Windows compatible UI that sits on Linux that would be the best thing for everyone I believe"
You believe some strange things. MS have been progressively screwing up the Windows UI for the last several years. There are plenty who wouldn't consider it the best thing at all so scrap "everyone". .
Not sure how accurate it is"
It seems rather muddled. The thesis is that MS dropped Xenix because IBM went for MS-DOS on PCs so they didn't need it. Given that Xenix was a server OS and MS-DOS a client that's a non-sequitur. Xenix followed by SCO Openserver, often with an application package based on Informix was a mainstay of a lot of small businesses with either green-screens or PCs as terminals. Until MS started doing server versions of Windows the two were largely complementary.
"Sorry, but after forced upgrade of RHEL5 to 6 (process also also known as wipe clean and start from scratch) few years ago just to be able to run LibreOffice built against some latest and greatest library I don't believe that."
After trying one of the Red Hat derivatives some time ago and having had similar problems compiling something I Googled around and came across a forum post where someone was asking about a similar problem. They were in effect told they shouldn't be compiling, their own stuff, they should just use the distro's version. I felt that someone was missing the point and I didn't think it was me. I left the land of Red Hat and haven't returned.
OTOH I suspect that often configs are apt to specify recent if not bleeding edge versions of packages as the minimum simply because that's what the dev has on their own machine rather than specifying the oldest version that provides the functionality, or at least the oldest version anyone's likely to have. That suspicion is confirmed when one then finds a binary download of the same version which runs quite happily in the environment which failed to compile it.
"Neeps with haggis of course aren't what the English call turnips, but are actually Swedish Turneeps, or swedes, which are lovely"
OK, total confusion now. When I worra lad turnips were the large yellow-fleshed veg used, inter alia to make turnip lanterns for bonfire night (Halloween? <spit>) and swedes were the little white jobs. Now it seems to be t'other way about. So I'm not sure what you're alleging the English call turnips.
Personally I prefer the big yellow-fleshed version and even better mashed with carrots.
But let's also hear it for kohl rabbi.
"I started with the Royal Mail, but misremembered the year I moved in to my current house"
There could also be a problem with Royal Mail not knowing the correct house. I discovered that PAF had the address wrong all the time my parents lived here. Off-hand I couldn't say whether I corrected it before or after we moved in.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019