And as for choice...
With Linux you have choice, you can use either Linux or Windows.
But...
Vit zer Vindows you haf not ze choice, only ze Vindows.
And so...
In order to preserve that choice we must force everyone to use Linux!
And as for choice...
With Linux you have choice, you can use either Linux or Windows.
But...
Vit zer Vindows you haf not ze choice, only ze Vindows.
And so...
In order to preserve that choice we must force everyone to use Linux!
@tdb said:
Sure, Linux distros have updates too. My point with this was that Windows downloads stuff from the net too, not that Linux would somehow magically be bug-free and complete from day one. A plus side for downloading the entire binary is that you only need to download the latest version, not every one of the million patches between release and now.
First it was hundreds in the first week, and now it's a million. Whatever next? An infinite number of patches within the first second? Meanwhile I'm looking at my Windows 7 machine that has had 27 - count 'em - OS patches since RTM. Surely something must be wrong, and it's either reality or the opinion of Weenix Lunies who can't be bothered even getting the facts right before spouting ridiculous hyperbole.
There's a difference between "can't install" and "won't install", and the OP makes it clear that this case is "won't install".
@bridget99 said:
I have tried to explain this at this site before, and I get zero sympathy. "Oh, you knuckle-dragging fool; just install TardWorks 9.0 and all your problems will be solved." But that's not practical... I've already got a long list of things I have to do to each fresh system I deal with (e.g. disabling font-smudging, GUI animation, "simple" file sharing, and file-extension hiding). I can't install TardWorks 9.0, or IE8, or Firefox, or Notepad++ on every one of these systems, at least not consistently.
It's not that big a deal to just add Notepad++ where required is it? Surely it's more important to have a functioning text editor than it is to have GUIs that don't animate? Or am I missing something really really obvious here? C'mon OP, enlighten me! Or are you happier to waste energy complaining about something instead of, y'know, like, doing something about it?
The only WTF-ery in Notepad is Weenix Lunies who think it's anything other than what it is. It's not a general-purpose programmers (or any other kind of) editor, it's meant for quickly double-clicking on text files and making small changes. If you want to use vi (and may the lord have mercy on your soul) there are versions of it available for Windows.
Sheesh, next thing is we'll have people flaming Calc because it doesn't have a built-in scripting language.
@Tyler said:
@Xyro said:
This sounds like an intriguing permissions-elevation exploit waiting to happen. What if you replace the Computer Management shortcut with a shortcut to something else? When you right-click Computer -> Manage tool, will it still give you the UAC with the title of "Computer Management"? Aaand then will it arbitrarily execute your shortcut with higher permissions?
(I don't have any fancy Windows computers to test this out with, so I'm not even sure if what I suggested makes sense.)
It sounds like the shortcut in question is in the All Users directory, which should only be modifiable by a user who has administrator privileges anyway.
AKA "It rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway".
Not a security issue.
I hang around the forums for a certain piece of software, and one day another member asked about an error he was getting when he attempted to decompress a file. My (correct) guess was that he had a FAT32 drive, and was hitting the size limit, so I gave him a few tips on converting to NTFS (with the caveat that a fresh install is preferable), assuming he was an XP home person with a pre-installed FAT32 drive (remembering that some vendors used to do this).
Lo and behold, his reply:
Now I have to persuade the Administrator to do the same with all our other (317) computers.
That's what you get for not sending an email to let them know the email was down!
Time to jump ship. If they're looking to charge money for something as basic as bug fixes, they're in trouble!
@bstorer said:
It shouldn't still be able to run because... oh, I don't know... it was designed for another operating system?!
That's fair enough, but the initial example was fairly silly to begin with. Windows 2000 is only 2 generations behind Vista, is only one major version number behind, and is - allegedy - an earlier version of the same OS. SQL 2000 is only one generation and one major version number behind the current version (2K5).
@bstorer said:
@mfah said:
@KenW said:
And, since in your opinion software should never be obsoleteIn fairness, I don't actually recall russ ever saying that.
@russ0519 said:
Your argument makes no sense. VS2008 has NEVER been supported on MS-DOS 3.2. I would, however, expect my turbo pascal from dos 6.22 days to run in Vista. New OS's should be backward compatible.
Not the same thing. Expecting software to still run is quite different from expecting it to be never obsolete. Of course Turbo Pascal is obsolete, but why shouldn't it still be able to run?