Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years
-
@cheong Unless you need to squeeze out that extra 2KB of UMB or HMA memory or just the right flavour of XMS or EMS in just the right amount for the game to run.
So glad that later versions of MS-DOS let you set multiple versions of config.sys and autoexec.bat that you could effectively multi-boot between for those special snowflake games.
-
@anonymous234 Your analogy was sound until SPA brainworms came to the party.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@anonymous234 These complex solutions are messy. MS-DOS did the only correct thing, that is unzip in a folder.
Then by default I would want that no application have permission to write anywhere but it's own folder. (Like chrooting to the executable path).
Base all security in sandboxing this stuff.
Your security solution has a major ramification that would be problematic: all productivity software can now only save to the program's folder. That includes text editors, spreadsheet editors, image editors …
Your method of software security just made user directories, and probably NAS, essentially useless.
-
@abarker said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Your security solution has a major ramification that would be problematic: all productivity software can now only save to the program's folder. That includes text editors, spreadsheet editors, image editors …
Hey, works for iOS!
At least I think it works that way
-
@anonymous234 Yes, because we all know that mobile === desktop these days.
-
@anonymous234 said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Hey, works for iOS!
At least I think it works that way
On iOS, an app that claims to be able to open a certain type of document can open those also if they were created with a different app.
If your app is capable of opening specific types of files, you should register that support with the system. This allows other apps, through the iOS document interaction technology, to offer the user the option to hand off those files to your app.
-
@Gurth And as someone who teaches a class in HTML and CSS where the students only use iPads, let me tell you that it sucks as a solution. The "Open in" dance that happens for downloading things (and the concomitant waste of storage as files get duplicated) is frustrating, error prone, and time-wasting. Dealing with that on a desktop/laptop machine would make me get on a plane, fly to the OS-maker's place of business, and employ one of @RaceProUK's famous cluebats (I do hope I have the right person there...)
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
employ one of @RaceProUK's famous cluebats (I do hope I have the right person there...)
'Fraid not: I only stock the finest in Clueko Hammers :P
-
@RaceProUK said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
employ one of @RaceProUK's famous cluebats (I do hope I have the right person there...)
'Fraid not: I only stock the finest in Clueko Hammers :P
That works as well, as long as they're painful to the recipient. I think it was those of which I was intending to speak anyway. Headache + eye-lid twitching + one more class period to teach = trouble thinking.
-
@LaoC First thing: I'm talking about applications, not drivers.
But DOS was better at that too, it was very few things that required drivers, and I understood each line of config.sys and autoexec.bat and could rewrite it in minutes. Compare that with the huge list that the device manager show me at windows, blergh.
-
@abarker said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Your method of software security just made user directories, and probably NAS, essentially useless.
And why would I need any of those? Fuck that.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@abarker said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Your method of software security just made user directories, and probably NAS, essentially useless.
And why would I need any of those? Fuck that.
Aw, poor wittle @wharrgarbl. He can't imagine a need for things that he personally doesn't use. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean the rest of us need to frack everything up to meet your security desires.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
But DOS was better at that too, it was very few things that required drivers
Yeah, every application needed to code it's own printer and sound card driver
-
@abarker That could be said for any opinion on how stuff should work. Downvoted for the namecalling and being condescending.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@abarker That could be said for any opinion on how stuff should work. Downvoted for the namecalling and being condescending.
YMBNH. As part of your orientation, please be aware that denizens of TDWTF frequently resort to condescension and name calling. You could say it's part of the allure of this wretched hive of scum and villainy!
Wait a second … there wasn't any name calling there! What are you trying to pull‽
-
@abarker said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
there wasn't any name calling there!
You called me a wittle
-
@abarker said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Wait a second … there wasn't any name calling there! What are you trying to pull‽
You called him wharrgarbl
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
You called me a wittle
Wittle? What's a wittle?
-
@antiquarian dunno, but it can't be anything good
-
@antiquarian said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Wittle? What's a wittle?
Basically, little
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
dunno, but it can't be anything good
If you prefer, we can call you something with a readily identifiable meaning.
@TimeBandit said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Basically, little
Sure, but that's an adjective.
E_NO_VALID_PARSE
-
-
@abarker I was doing a bit of an hyperbole anyway. Windows is perfectly capable of xcopy deployment, I whish it was the standard practice to any application where it's possible.
-
@anonymous234 said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
And at this point you pretty much have an exact copy of Java Web Start.
Eh? I used something with JWS today -- I had to, upon downloading the app, find it in my downloads and double-click to run it.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@LaoC First thing: I'm talking about applications, not drivers.
OK, scratch that. But the path extension and general chaos problem remains. You had to do it all by hand. Try that with the number of programs you have on a typical desktop today. It doesn't scale. And of course, if the OS provides nothing beyond very basic I/O and every program has to bring everything anyway, most of the problems don't even arise. If you care as much about security as you did with DOS (i.e. not at all), you can of course still apply that concept today.
But DOS was better at that too, it was very few things that required drivers,
Almost every single piece of hardware required drivers. Even the Amiga, designed as a console, had a far more advanced hardware extension system than the IBM. Of course you also had a tiny, tiny fraction of today's hardware available.
and I understood each line of config.sys and autoexec.bat and could rewrite it in minutes. Compare that with the huge list that the device manager show me at windows, blergh.
I'm not exactly advocating the Windows way here
-
@antiquarian said in [Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years]
@TimeBandit said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Basically, little
Sure, but that's an adjective.
E_NO_VALID_PARSE
It parses as a misspelling of "whittle". "The poor (people [probably referring to DOS users]) generally excite @wharrgarbl by giving him alcohol".
Sounds plausible.
-
@LaoC said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
But the path extension and general chaos problem remains.
Path is completely ortogonal to what we're discussing and didn't change from DOS to Windows. Linux way throwing everything at /usr/bin is disgusting.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
But the path extension and general chaos problem remains.
Path is completely ortogonal to what we're discussing and didn't change from DOS to Windows.
"Unzip to a folder" is just not practical as "installation" unless you're willing to put up with shit like remembering (and completely re-learning whenever you use someone else's machine) the path to every program and entering it every time you run it.
Linux way throwing everything at /usr/bin is disgusting.
Why?
-
@LaoC said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
"Unzip to a folder" is just not practical as "installation" unless you're willing to put up with shit like remembering (and completely re-learning whenever you use someone else's machine) the path to every program and entering it every time you run it.
That’s what things like Start menus, Docks, and search were invented for. And TBH, finding something in another person’s Start menu can be just as much of a pain as finding it on a hard drive.
Also, as long as the person installing the software is somewhat sensible — and when the OS preferably recommends this — they’re likely to put all their programs together in a single place, making them easy to find even on someone else’s machine.
-
@abarker said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@anonymous234 These complex solutions are messy. MS-DOS did the only correct thing, that is unzip in a folder.
Then by default I would want that no application have permission to write anywhere but it's own folder. (Like chrooting to the executable path).
Base all security in sandboxing this stuff.
Your security solution has a major ramification that would be problematic: all productivity software can now only save to the program's folder. That includes text editors, spreadsheet editors, image editors …
Your method of software security just made user directories, and probably NAS, essentially useless.
(Highlighting "by default")
Actually, if when installing the Apps, the system will ask whether you want the program to write into other folders, like what we see in mobile Apps, I think it'd be pretty do-able.
-
@cheong More realistically, the "open file" and "save file" dialogs would automatically grant permission to read or write to the files the user selected (and same when double clicking a file, etc). So Word and other programs like it could still work seamlessly.
-
@LaoC said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
If you sell $5000 software you probably have the manpower to ensure speedy and tested security fixes.
-
@anonymous234 said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@cheong More realistically, the "open file" and "save file" dialogs would automatically grant permission to read or write to the files the user selected (and same when double clicking a file, etc). So Word and other programs like it could still work seamlessly.
That will require the dialog be displayed in secure desktop, or bad people will just send message to automate it.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
That works as well, as long as they're painful to the recipient.
Does a red smear (with a few bony chunks) feel pain?
-
@Gurth said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
"Unzip to a folder" is just not practical as "installation" unless you're willing to put up with shit like remembering (and completely re-learning whenever you use someone else's machine) the path to every program and entering it every time you run it.
That’s what things like Start menus, Docks, and search were invented for. And TBH, finding something in another person’s Start menu can be just as much of a pain as finding it on a hard drive.
Exactly. That was when "installing" started to mean something at tad more complicated than "unzip to a folder".
Also, as long as the person installing the software is somewhat sensible — and when the OS preferably recommends this — they’re likely to put all their programs together in a single place, making them easy to find even on someone else’s machine.
That single place used to be
C:\
on something like 90% of all machines in the age of DOS. The convention was so pervasive that I've seen 21st-century Windows programs that required some data to live in a directory in C's root.
-
@dkf said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
If you sell $5000 software you probably have the manpower to ensure speedy and tested security fixes.
Yeah ... uh, theoretically speaking you should be able to :)
-
@wharrgarbl said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
@anonymous234 These complex solutions are messy. MS-DOS did the only correct thing, that is unzip in a folder.
Then by default I would want that no application have permission to write anywhere but it's own folder. (Like chrooting to the executable path).
Base all security in sandboxing this stuff.
Seems Microsoft have heard you.
In Win10S, you can only download and install Apps from MarketPlace and they all live in containers.
Even though it runs on i5 and i7, all non-App applications are explicitly blocked from running. (In additional to the fact that it'll only run Edge and IE and you cannot change default browser.) Ideal for lazy technical staffs who don't want troubles.
-
@cheong said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Seems Microsoft have heard you.
I have some alts on their board
-
@LaoC said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Exactly. That was when "installing" started to mean something at tad more complicated than "unzip to a folder”.
On Windows, yes. Most macOS software is drag-and-drop install, from a zip file or disk image to the Applications folder (or wherever else you want, but the by-the-book location is /Applications). But then, I suppose that from your perspective that again runs into the problem of keeping libraries etc. updated, since all but Apple-provided ones tend to come with each application separately.
That single place used to be
C:\
on something like 90% of all machines in the age of DOS.This is a problem you can’t really solve except by disallowing users any choice in where they put files in the file system at all. If you let them, some people will just put stuff down anywhere and everywhere. I’ve seen more than one computer where the users had put just as much stuff (photos, word processor documents, PDFs, and whatnot) in the root directory of the hard drive as in their home folder where it belongs. I suspect these are the same kind of people whose desk or workbench is such a mess that they can’t find anything they need unless they rummage around for a while.
The convention was so pervasive that I've seen 21st-century Windows programs that required some data to live in a directory in C's root.
That, though, is just bad programming.
-
@cheong said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
In additional to the fact that it'll only run Edge and IE
False. If you make a browser and package it for the MarketPlace (and have it accepted ), you can run it.
and you cannot change default browser
That's true.
-
@cheong said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
Even though it runs on i5 and i7, all non-App applications are explicitly blocked from running. (In additional to the fact that it'll only run Edge and IE and you cannot change default browser.) Ideal for lazy technical staffs who don't want troubles.
I love it. This is another thing Microsoft should have realized a long time ago.
See, the main reason why Android and iOS are much easier to use than Windows is... they do a lot less.
Fewer features, fewer settings, fewer things that can go wrong. For 90% of users, a locked down OS with just a browser and some simple apps that will never break (unless you try really hard) is just perfect.
-
@anonymous234 said in Why desktop operating systems have completely failed at their job for the last 20 years:
See, the main reason why Android and iOS are much easier to use than Windows is... they do a lot less.
That's why Linux is harder to use than Windows: it does a lot more
-
@anonymous234 No, it'a pretty much precisely what they did with RT, and it was rejected because people couldn't install anything they wanted on it.
I think it's a good, even necessary idea, but consumers got mad last time...
-
@Magus Win32 apps can be installed this time as long as they are in the store.
-
@lucas1 That's fine, but most apps aren't in the store. They can be, but if Joe User goes to install some random thing someone suggested off the internet, it won't work.
Again, I think it's a good thing, and it's supported properly now. I just hope they have a good set of applications available.
-
@Magus My dad will have a laptop running Windows S next year. It is for people that use Ebay and Netflix and some other crap.
-
@lucas1 It's also what dumb parents and grandparents will buy because of the price tag, and buy for their children/grandchildren. Because lets be real, Windows RT was perfectly sufficient for the sort of user you're describing, but the problem was that people who weren't that kind of user bought them.
And what I don't know is how they're going to keep that from happening. All of us here knew what was going on, and wouldn't have had that issue. It only takes a few blog posts to get some news articles written about "The Fatal Flaw Microsoft Made - AGAIN!" and then gg for the new RT.
-
@Magus The point is that is something we have to accept is that normal people don't care if the platform is fairly open.
-
In a few years times Mac OS and Windows (normal windows) will be for devs and professionals only.
PCs will be like console essentially.
-
@lucas1 No, I totally agree with that, and it's probably for the best. But even if you have 10k satisfied customers, 10 blog posts are enough to get the anti-windows tech journos excited and start predicting the end. I mean, they've already started, and no one even has one yet.
It's a PR issue that I hope Microsoft has an answer to. Because while the average user would be totally satisfied with the product, if their cousin says that their best friend says that they read an article that says it won't do what they want, they won't buy it, even though it would, in fact, have done what they want.
It's purely an issue of perception, and Microsoft has a built-in negative perception on anything not named Surface, doubled by the fact that in this case, people will reference RT. I just hope they have a plan.