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
