Thanks Michael -- we also have to patiently remember that we're hell-bent
on some ideals, as experts (or specialists, or avid hobbyists, whatever) in
this field. For instance, consider auto's; I have friends who suggest I
should bore out such-
and-such in my engine, put on Mag wheels, change out some factory things,
bump up the
suspension, and *how* could I drive I5 without a radar detector??
And that's just the beginning.
Well, hope you're laughing at this too :) My car works fine for me,
although I'd rather run linux, er I mean bio-fuels, on it.
I like your verbiage, Xploitation ... Xploit-nation ;)
ben
On 2/12/07, Michael Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben,
You have some really good points. I think the biggest problem are the
individuals who say I want X and get it. When they get X they use 1/2
of the features not knowing they leave there X to exploitation.
-Miller
On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed, more or less. A major point, I think, is this:
> Now that the industry has more or less collectively
> decided that the network is now good enough to provide
> WAN-delivered applications, and web tech such as AJAX
> is helping deliver them smoothly, using existing architecture
> such as standards-compliant web browsers, why the heck
> to we need a super-fancy OS? Aquarium screensavers are
> a great example. Instead of having living pets to interact with
> and experience life lessons about partnership and care with,
> we "need" to burn extra watts to entertain those archaic fancies.
>
> I enjoy fancy desktop environments almost as much as those who
> promote them, but obviously it is not required for, and is almost
> diametrically opposed to, the functionality people need from computers.
> Sorta like power windows & doors, yes I might drive safer by not leaning
> across the car to use a hand-crank, but to assume that power windows
> make people drive more safely is just idiotic. Like a hands-free mobile
> kit,
> the safety is very dependent upon the user. Safety or productivity,
similar
> cases. I had my own backlash about OS X in the last few months, since
> most users don't engage in many of the features, at which point I think
the
> OS doesn't matter much -- like those who simply need a RED car, or one
> that looks fast, or .... and so forth.
>
> In the interest of avoiding a flame-fest I better stop here :) It
seems we
> all pretty much agree about what is really useful, and how the
commercial
> market hurts & limits FOSS adoption, and how interoperability and
getting
> things done is more or less the bottom line -- the ideal freedoms of
> information
> also being on the table of course. I'll also just add in, that I am
> impressed with
> (but not surprised by) Google word-processing and spreadsheet
applications,
> too
> -- if you haven't seem them yet, they're worth checking out. Sign up
for
> google's
> 'for domains" beta program, if you have a spare domain name hanging
around
> :)
> They give you 25 accounts, containing gmail, calendaring, and the
apps...
> and more.
>
> ben
>
>
> On 2/12/07, Michael Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know some one is going to disagree with me on this one.
> >
> > I think the now defunct company Network / Net Appliance not to be
> > confused with the Company NetApp. Network Appliance created a nice
> > little computer called a I-Opener with QNX and there Nano window
> > environment. No fancy graphics and animations. I think if some one
> > had a free distro that updated it self and just has a e-mail client
> > and web browser like FireFox. I know your saying what about office
> > software. If you only need a word processor and spreadsheet
> > application. Use Google. I don't think Vista is going to have a
> > large following and Microsoft will drop support for Windows XP early
> > causing people to upgrade.
> >
> > -Miller
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If there were some way that Microsoft could release win98 to the
FOSS
> > > world, without providing undue competition with their own marketing,
> > > that'd be a major help for the millions of "normal" users, who just
need
> > > to get online for common web/email uses.... where the upgrade costs
> > > surrounding Vista compete with numerous MONTHS of grocery
bills. :((
> > >
> > > I think Vista is overpriced by a factor of TEN. Even upgrading to
XP,
> > > for the average low- to mid-level income citizen is a hardship. Too
> > > many winME installs still thrashing about, out there in the world...
> > > I'm just identifying the pains of the masses here, for the business
> > > world I think the costs are fairly nominal, although of course
they'd
> > > get FAR more bang for their buck by going with a FOSS-backended
> > > architecture. If Intuit would only release a QuickBooks for Linux,
> > > either an enterprise version for Linux or even their base product
line
> > > in such a way as to be COMPATIBLE with Samba. I have a client
> > > for whom Samba was working as their QuickBooks share for years,
> > > and recently things broke down and got bad, I haven't been able yet,
> > > to figure out whether the particular instance of Samba is having
> troubles
> > > or whether they've actually made their dependency more clear (in
terms
> > > of interoperability failures). Yuck, not stuff I want to deal with,
but
> it
> > > certainly drives the business world, and so many companies don't
need
> > > much more than a well-firewalled workplace WAN-connected LAN, with
> > > QuickBooks or something similar. Yes, "something similar" could
begin
> > > to take over, but without easy training videos and course at LCC to
> > > train on those similar, possibly FOSS systems, it just won't fly.
> > >
> > > It might be known that I have become an OS X supporter... and I
think
> > > that computing platform has done more to offer users a good starting
> > > place to switch, now with parallels, boot camp, etc... hopefully Xen
or
> > > similar (vmware?) will allow those last necessary windows components
> > > of an organization's architecture to be hosted without dedicated
> hardware.
> > > When I was at Lunar Logic, we had a handful of winders boxen on &
around
> the
> > > rack, which was otherwise almost 100% debian, the sysadmin team
dreaded
> > > it and was hoping to put them all in virtual containers
IIRC. Ideally,
> into
> > > the
> > > circular file [ie, wastebasket] :) They did their job, though,
> although
> > > at times
> > > they took an inordinate amount of maintenance and tweaks for
interop....
> > > much like any ego-maniacal coworkers that need to feel like they run
the
> > > place.
> > > ("yes, whatever you say; yes, you are so right... we've adapted
systems
> as
> > > per your [PHB] assertions...")
> > > </rant>
> > >
> > > lol
> > >
> > > ben
> > >
> > >
> ...
> _______________________________________________
> EUGLUG mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
>
>
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
