On 6 Apr 2004 at 21:18, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
This is something we don't have much of on the QL scene - automatic software updates. On the whole we replace the entire program package by overwriting it, or replace a few files such as the main executable. If we are lucky, the configuration is held in a separate file and so settings are preserved after the update, but on the whole we have to start from scratch much of the time with a software update.
I tend to disagree with that. Any program that uses config block level 2 can be configured in a matter of seconds to use the old config data!
That doesn't make it safer :-) IMHO Separate configuration files are the way to go.
As for what Roy talks about in length, I do not disagree that a user wants to plug and go any machine (That was the idea behind the QL anyway), however the Windoze approach of packaging everything and then put artificial barriers to other software manufacturers (with usually better products) is not only wrong but unethical as well.
I have NO problem whatsoever with Microsoft putting everything (and the kitchen sink) in an OS, however I do want the choice to remove it when and HOW I please. Microsoft implies that Windoze cannot operate without their packaged software (which is a blatant lie as proved by many researchers and companies of course) and they have used their dominant position in the market to reinforce their client "conditioning" having as a result firm supporters of their software packages like many people on this list :-) (hehe). The problem is that they use lies and at least I for one do not like to be lied to... I'd much rather hear from M$: "That's the way we want to sell it, take it or leave it" instead of lame excuses regarding "necessity" and (blah-blah-blah)... We (As humans) do not like to be lied to right? We should we give a company the right to lie to us? Why is that they are different (and better) than the rest of us anyway? Yes, I know it sounds like a philosophical more than practical reasoning for rejecting Microsoft practices, but isn't ethics what separates us from the beasts?
Truth is in the final analysis (like Roy has done) that we tend to mix the definition of an OS with an integrated Operating Environment. These are TWO different and completely separate things. Yes it is good to have a machine ready out-of-the-box (nothing wrong with that,. for example you expect your new car to be able to be driven on the road, not having to buy tyres for it, but at least you SHOULD have the choice of what tyres you want on it). And ON THAT EXAMPLE, Microsoft has run a SERIES of ads regarding the ability of their software to assist on "mass customisation" (another obscure Operations Management term :-) ) and denying the same possibility to its clients is kinda dumb wouldn't you agree? Plus dammit! It's ONLY software which means it can include EVERYTHING you want (if it was made right anyway ;-) and produce it on a whim (ie with an automated CD-burner Software ATM kind-of-thing (see latest news on Comp-USA stores) ) without significant costs to them -or to the consumer!.
There are indeed many M$ software packages that are working pretty nicely but why should I be FORCED to pay for them anyway? Not when I can get similar -or better- software for free at least?
Phoebus _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
