Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th May 2011 22:10 UTC
Google Because of Google I/O going full-steam ahead, it's a bit of a Google thing going on here. Google co-founder Sergey Brin had a little chat with the press about the Chromebooks Google announced yesterday, and during that talk, he stated that traditional PC operating systems are "torturing users" with their complexity. While he certainly has a point, I'm not sure I like his solution. Giving Google all my files? Yeah... No.
Order by: Score:
Comment by orestes
by orestes on Thu 12th May 2011 22:13 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do statements like that make me want to go rewatch Idiocracy?

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by orestes
by tony on Fri 13th May 2011 08:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by orestes"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do statements like that make me want to go rewatch Idiocracy?


Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren't technologically obsessed? There's a difference between "dumbing down" and "making it easier", and it amazes me how many in technology refuse to admit that's even possible.

We used to compile everything ourselves, now most of us use package installers, not because we're dumber, because it's a more efficient use of our time.

We use content management systems to write our blogs, rather than hand code HTML. Does that make us dumber? We write code in C instead of assembler, does that make us dumber? We develop web applications in ASP/PHP/Ruby on Rails instead of C, does that make us dumber?

Of course not. It makes us more efficient. We're able to spend less time on stuff that doesn't really matter to get stuff done that does matter.

In Douglas Adam's "How To Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet" he quotes computer scientist Brian Ferran: "Technology is stuff that doesn't work yet." Right now, for most people, technology doesn't work. And while I don't quite buy into his solution, I think he's right when he says desktops are torturing users.

Just because something is easy for you, doesn't mean it's easy. There's a difference between "easy" and "familiar".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by orestes
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 08:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by orestes"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"Why do statements like that make me want to go rewatch Idiocracy?


Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren't technologically obsessed?
"

No. It's because calling something like having a Windows PC as a torturous experience is really over the top and just plain old idiotic.

None of the people I know for example do not find it in any way or form torturous: if there's something they don't understand they ask someone, and about managing their computers: well, gee, they don't manage them. Of course they SHOULD do it, but as people often do they just ignore the things they don't know about, and if they ignore it how can it be torturous?

Of the previously mentioned people they only find their experience mildly "torturous" when they've got a malware infection, not before, so that kind of shoots Brin's claims down. Not to mention the fact that with a firewall and antivirus you can avoid most viruses, and that "Chromebooks" won't be somehow magically completely invulnerable to infections either.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by orestes
by tony on Fri 13th May 2011 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by orestes"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"[q]Why do statements like that make me want to go rewatch Idiocracy?


Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren't technologically obsessed?
"

No. It's because calling something like having a Windows PC as a torturous experience is really over the top and just plain old idiotic.

None of the people I know for example do not find it in any way or form torturous: if there's something they don't understand they ask someone, and about managing their computers: well, gee, they don't manage them. Of course they SHOULD do it, but as people often do they just ignore the things they don't know about, and if they ignore it how can it be torturous?

Of the previously mentioned people they only find their experience mildly "torturous" when they've got a malware infection, not before, so that kind of shoots Brin's claims down. Not to mention the fact that with a firewall and antivirus you can avoid most viruses, and that "Chromebooks" won't be somehow magically completely invulnerable to infections either. [/q]

Torturous might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that Windows is overly complicated for what it does, and with that complexity comes lots of problems. How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying "Windows is searching for a solution". I've yet to see it ever find a solution. Every now and then I can't print from Word. I don't know why.

I'm a power user. I'm a network instructor and author, and Windows bugs me to no end. It's not that I can't deal with the problems that crop up with Windows, it's that I don't want to.

It sounds like the people you know are power users. Maybe they enjoy troubleshooting. I'm long since the point where I enjoy finding the solution to a desktop problem. I'm much more interested in diagnosing a network problem for an enterprise customer or researching fibre channel performance than figuring out why the hell Word won't print.

The average consumer is different than you or I. They just want a tool. I'm becoming more like them in the desktop and mobile area. I want a tool, not a hobby. I've got work and play to do, and diagnosing Windows issues (and Linux desktop issues for that matter). Mac OS X is the least troublesome so far, but I wouldn't mind it getting simpler.

If digging around a desktop is your idea of fun, I'm happy with that. But don't deride people who would rather get things done.

If someone comes along with a simpler way to do something, why is that not a good thing? Why is that not a great thing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by orestes
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by orestes"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying "Windows is searching for a solution".


Not many. And besides, it will happen on Chromebooks too.

It sounds like the people you know are power users.


No, they aren't. I'm the only power-user among my family and friends, everyone else barely knows how to turn their PC on and off.

If someone comes along with a simpler way to do something, why is that not a good thing? Why is that not a great thing?


You're barking up the wrong tree. I never said it's not a good thing. But Chromebook simply isn't an all-encompassing solution and will not be able to replace regular PCs for many -- or even most -- people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by orestes
by tony on Fri 13th May 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by orestes"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying "Windows is searching for a solution".


Not many. And besides, it will happen on Chromebooks too.
"

Applications will crash, but it won't add that unnecessary and worthless step of "searching for a solution". A prime example of unneeded complexity that Windows adds that provides no useful function.

"It sounds like the people you know are power users.


No, they aren't. I'm the only power-user among my family and friends, everyone else barely knows how to turn their PC on and off.

If someone comes along with a simpler way to do something, why is that not a good thing? Why is that not a great thing?


You're barking up the wrong tree. I never said it's not a good thing. But Chromebook simply isn't an all-encompassing solution and will not be able to replace regular PCs for many -- or even most -- people.
"

Perhaps Chrome isn't it, but the way we interact with computers is changing. The days of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) are numbered. We've been using it for the past 25ish years, and while it was great for the time and got us where we are today, it's not the future.

HP is going to be releasing WebOS with every consumer PC they sell next year. iPads are phenomenally successful, and Android tablets are becoming more so. They can't quite replace a desktop yet, but soon we'll have desktops that are slightly souped up tablets with a keyboard.

Things are changing. Some will need the extra flexibility of a traditional desktop OS. They will likely be the minority.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by orestes
by Sauron on Fri 13th May 2011 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by orestes"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Perhaps Chrome isn't it, but the way we interact with computers is changing. The days of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) are numbered.

I think you meant to say "the way YOU interact with computers is changing". Not everyone is happy with touch-screens and tablets/smart-phones. Of all the people I know only 1 of them has a tablet, and most of the time it's stuck in a corner under his computer desk while he uses the desktop PC. Regrets buying it he said!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by orestes
by Aragorn992 on Sat 14th May 2011 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by orestes"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Perhaps Chrome isn't it, but the way we interact with computers is changing. The days of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) are numbered.

I think you meant to say "the way YOU interact with computers is changing". Not everyone is happy with touch-screens and tablets/smart-phones. Of all the people I know only 1 of them has a tablet, and most of the time it's stuck in a corner under his computer desk while he uses the desktop PC. Regrets buying it he said!


No. The author was right to generalise and say the way "we" interact with computers is changing. Check some sales numbers from the past few years and see which segments are growing and which are declining.

And, no offence, but I doubt all the people you know would qualify as statistically significant in this context :p

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by orestes
by Drumhellar on Sat 14th May 2011 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by orestes"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying "Windows is searching for a solution" I've yet to see it ever find a solution.


For me, this has found 3 patches: two hotfixes from Microsoft that aren't normally distributed via Windows Update, and one from a third party. Sometimes, it works.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by orestes
by Aragorn992 on Sat 14th May 2011 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by orestes"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

"[q]Why do statements like that make me want to go rewatch Idiocracy?


Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren't technologically obsessed?
"

No. It's because calling something like having a Windows PC as a torturous experience is really over the top and just plain old idiotic.

None of the people I know for example do not find it in any way or form torturous: if there's something they don't understand they ask someone, and about managing their computers: well, gee, they don't manage them. Of course they SHOULD do it, but as people often do they just ignore the things they don't know about, and if they ignore it how can it be torturous?

Of the previously mentioned people they only find their experience mildly "torturous" when they've got a malware infection, not before, so that kind of shoots Brin's claims down. Not to mention the fact that with a firewall and antivirus you can avoid most viruses, and that "Chromebooks" won't be somehow magically completely invulnerable to infections either. [/q]

Yeah and they ignore it long enough until the problem get serious enough that they have to do something about it. My parents do this all the time. Reading forums, asking people for help, wondering if their data will be lost - all torturous to my parents, trust me. And my parents are likely representative of the biggest "group" of computer users.

And considering how often Windows PCs run by ignorant/lazy people get malware, this actually supports Brin's claims.

What Brin is saying is not idiotic, it is ambitious. The computer, the king of automated calculation, and for some reason we don't program it well enough to look after itself? We need to manage such arbitrary bullshit like virus's and malware. The burden should never ever be on the user - or at least this should be the goal.

The famous saying was "technology is stuff that doesn't work yet". People like my parents, don't want to use technology. They want to check their emails and facebook. Anything else is a burden for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by orestes
by JAlexoid on Sat 14th May 2011 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by orestes"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Do you have a firewall and an antivirus installed? Or maybe some sort of desktop internet security package that integrates both?(For daily activities)

Do you do backups? What would happen if your HDD would fail tomorrow? (Will cause a lot of headaches for most people.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by orestes
by Snapper on Fri 13th May 2011 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by orestes"
Snapper Member since:
2005-11-16

Yes, it does make us dumber.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Assuming the critisism is against making things easier for users itself is rather short sighted.

The OS itself is interesting. It's a new twist on the classic thinclient/mainframe model. The terminal breaks, turn it off, turn on a new one, log in and resume computering.

Here's the things to consider though:

- Is user data stored in such a way that only the user can access it? No third party access possible even by Google insider staff, no master decryption key? Is the connection encrypted end to end? No clear text step at any stage of the chain between your terminal and your data store? No "I forgot my password" back door for guessing attacks to obtain the decryption key or user passwords? No "it's to fight terrorism/childporn/"war-on"-du-jour" loophole? Will Google happily hand over data to any requesting government? The US gov's war on liberty? China's war on free thought? Internat laws imposed by middle eastern nations? Will the user still be able to access there data legally when in these countries even if proper strong encryption is implemented?

(Note; Skype is illegal to use in China and your Cisco VPN probably won't work when traveling in the middle east. Be careful where you use Truecrypt and PGP also.)

- For businesses, is there an appliance available which allows companies to retain control and centralized storage of there data within there own networks rather than relying on a third party service provider with no real vested interest in the safety of the data and possibly with more vested interest in data analysis of other's information? What information security assurances do businesses have and what recorse is available when an breach occures?

Some IT folk may be expressing purely emotional based critisisms but don't maket he mistake of thinking that there are not very good reasons.

Edited 2011-05-13 14:10 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The OS itself is interesting. It's a new twist on the classic thinclient/mainframe model.

My thoughts exactly. Though I'd use it to say that this is going backwards.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

My thoughts exactly. Though I'd use it to say that this is going backwards.


Everything "new" is something old that has been forgotten.
But this one is with a new twist. The infrastructure is ready for such device. Just like technology was cheap enough and powerful enough to give us iPhone in 2007, not 1991.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by orestes
by orestes on Fri 13th May 2011 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by orestes"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Dumber right now? no. "Dumber" down the line? It's a distinct possibility. At the least the balance of control shifts from the user to the third parties the user becomes increasingly reliant on. One would also suspect the number of allowed choices gets closer to zero.

Also, what happens when those "things that don't really matter" do matter and no one remembers how to do them?

Edited 2011-05-13 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by orestes
by AlxHamiltn on Mon 16th May 2011 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by orestes"
AlxHamiltn Member since:
2011-05-16

Well said, Tony

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Thu 12th May 2011 22:14 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

He is right and wrong at the same time.

Reply Score: 2

For once I agree completely
by IanDumych on Thu 12th May 2011 22:17 UTC
IanDumych
Member since:
2009-02-02

Thom, your thoughts on this mirror mine exactly. I'm all for easier computing for the masses, but Google is already well known for giving our information away to govenments without a warrant, and of course as you brought up there's the issue of what an incredible treasure trove of info is just waiting to be hacked.

Even beyond the data paranoia, vendor lock in is never a good thing. I'd be much more excited about Chrome OS if the server side tools were open source. This simply isn't a good thing for the tech ecosystem unless we can use this technology without relying completely on one company. What if Google decides they don't feel like keeping the servers going anymore, what would happen then? Probably exactly what happened when Microsoft turned off the lights at Danger.

Edited 2011-05-12 22:20 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: For once I agree completely
by AlxHamiltn on Mon 16th May 2011 02:00 UTC in reply to "For once I agree completely"
AlxHamiltn Member since:
2011-05-16

IanDumych, sounds like a vested interest at work in your comments. Try to hold back the future, why don't you. Many others have...and FAILED.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Is that anything like Brin's vested interest?

Reply Score: 2

Sony'd
by Rooki on Thu 12th May 2011 22:55 UTC
Rooki
Member since:
2011-05-12

I registered an account to congratulate you on turning Sony's fail into a verb. I hope this enters common use.

I salute you sir.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Sony'd
by WorknMan on Thu 12th May 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "Sony'd"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I registered an account to congratulate you on turning Sony's fail into a verb. I hope this enters common use.


Yeah, and here's another verb for you: Amazon'd:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216064/Amazon_gets_black_ey...

So if a business starts moving most/all of their data onto servers in the cloud that just happened to get Amazon'd, then the entire company is left sitting with a finger up their ass for a day or three, unable to access any of that data.

Edited 2011-05-12 23:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

Mozilla can get it right, so why not Google ?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Sync

Reply Score: 2

Femacamper Member since:
2009-05-26

Because Google is evil, and a CIA/NSA front.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm sure you have evidence indicating that Google is infact a CIA front rather than an incorporated business?

A US company bound by US law and requried to comply with legally submitted requests for information, sure.

A front organization setup by cliandistine siloetted profile pictures for the purpose of domestic spying? Pulease. Take the tinfoil hat off and go out in the sunlight once in a while. Even Robert Steel's Spy Improve talks don't go as far into left field as your claim apears.

Reply Score: 1

AlxHamiltn Member since:
2011-05-16

Because they want something for nothing. They want to exploit Google's work for their own profit and are miffed Google says no...HELL no.

Reply Score: 1

Actually, Brin has it reversed...
by tomcat on Fri 13th May 2011 00:03 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Users are torturing Google by not giving them all their documents and not centering their universe on Google's servers. Google wants to make itself the critical path for everything -- and thus become the weakest link. No thanks, Brin. I like the autonomy of having my own machine and deciding where/when my data moves anywhere.

Reply Score: 11

AlxHamiltn Member since:
2011-05-16

tomcat, KEEP your own machine AND your horse and buggy--who cares.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by fran
by fran on Fri 13th May 2011 00:09 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

I think Chrome will see rapid development and the whole sage will be fascinating to follow.
For me the gradual addition of more applications/games will be especially interesting.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by fran
by AlxHamiltn on Mon 16th May 2011 02:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by fran"
AlxHamiltn Member since:
2011-05-16

I can hardly wait...

Reply Score: 1

Users Torturing Selves
by jwwf on Fri 13th May 2011 00:19 UTC
jwwf
Member since:
2006-01-19

Users torture themselves by assuming it's possible to use a tool effectively without even attempting to understand how it works and how to use it.

Obviously you might say "Well, they don't want to be computer experts, they just want to write an email". Too bad. No one thinks that it's OK to not learn to drive properly just because people "just want to go places, not become driving experts".

Considering the costs of identity theft, data loss, etc, there are real consequences to this refusal to learn. Sure, operating systems implementors can help out, but if you expect them to solve the problem, let me ask you: How's that worked out so far?

Reply Score: 14

RE: Users Torturing Selves
by Drumhellar on Fri 13th May 2011 01:26 UTC in reply to "Users Torturing Selves"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

People don't kill innocent bystanders because they suck at writing email.

Only damage done is to your own personal data and credit, not grevious bodily harm to others.

It does sadden me, though, that there could be big business catering to those too lazy to learn common skills.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Users Torturing Selves
by jwwf on Fri 13th May 2011 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Users Torturing Selves"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

People don't kill innocent bystanders because they suck at writing email.

Only damage done is to your own personal data and credit, not grevious bodily harm to others.

It does sadden me, though, that there could be big business catering to those too lazy to learn common skills.


A more apt analogy might be this: A person picks up a hammer for the first time, bends a bunch of nails, hits his fingers a couple of times, and then concludes "This hammer sucks!".

I am perfectly happy if somebody makes money by finding an unserved market niche. I just dislike the cultural norm of this being considered reasonable behavior.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It's a key social value in the "me, me, me" culture of entitlement we live in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Users Torturing Selves
by Nth_Man on Fri 13th May 2011 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Users Torturing Selves"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Only damage done is to your own personal data and credit

I'm sure that you realize that people have data of other people, like their email address and other more sensitive data.

Also, being part of a botnet is almost always being part of malicious actions to other people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Users Torturing Selves
by JAlexoid on Sat 14th May 2011 10:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Users Torturing Selves"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm sure that you realize that people have data of other people, like their email address and other more sensitive data.

Also, being part of a botnet is almost always being part of malicious actions to other people.


And that is why Chrome OS was conceived - people don't want to monitor their antivirus software, get infected and their PCs become part of a botnet. Having a completely externally maintained device results in no malware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Users Torturing Selves
by bert64 on Sat 14th May 2011 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Users Torturing Selves"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

People don't kill innocent bystanders because they suck at writing email.


And this is the only reason government regulation hasn't stepped in already...

People who don't want to learn how cars work have alternatives - buses, trains, taxis etc. And this is what Google seeks to do, create a system for people who don't care how computers work and just want to do basic things that today are done using complicated computers...

Computers were designed by geeks for geeks, the average user should not need to worry about keeping software up to date, should not need to worry about malware, firewalls, video codecs etc.. They should have a simple system that provides them access to the data they want with the minimum of fuss.

Leave complicated operating systems to the geeks who can understand how to use them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Users Torturing Selves
by Sabon on Fri 13th May 2011 22:49 UTC in reply to "Users Torturing Selves"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be hard to have an analogy that is more wrong.

The correct analogy is that people using computers is like people driving. Most people do not want to do their own maintenance on their car OR their computer.

With cars there is a place you can take it to have it worked on. It is true for computer too ... BUT, and there is a huge butt. The complexity of computer is far greater and because of bad design.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Users Torturing Selves
by JAlexoid on Sat 14th May 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "Users Torturing Selves"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Users torture themselves by assuming it's possible to use a tool effectively without even attempting to understand how it works and how to use it.

Obviously you might say "Well, they don't want to be computer experts, they just want to write an email". Too bad. No one thinks that it's OK to not learn to drive properly just because people "just want to go places, not become driving experts".


Considering how many people are crap at driving and die as a result(you know that with identity theft you don't loose your life, don't you?), they should be required to be driving experts.

But, what you are saying that people become mechanics before they start driving.

I think that basic computer programming has to be mandatory in schools in the near future, since computers are everywhere. But design for simplicity, to have a lot of things that you don't worry about, is a good thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Users Torturing Selves
by AlxHamiltn on Mon 16th May 2011 02:05 UTC in reply to "Users Torturing Selves"
AlxHamiltn Member since:
2011-05-16

What a load...

Reply Score: 1

Netflix
by braddock on Fri 13th May 2011 00:27 UTC
braddock
Member since:
2005-07-08

I just hope this results in a Netflix solution for Linux, and all else that comes with a larger platform user base.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Netflix - not likely
by jabbotts on Fri 13th May 2011 14:34 UTC in reply to "Netflix"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Technically, there is no reason a netflix client won't run on a Linux or BSD based distro. The netflix set top boxes run a Linux distro. I believe the Wii also run a *nix distro under the hood and it has a netflix client. Not sure what OS the PS3 is running but it's not Windows or osX and it also has a netflix client.

Developers have already said outright that they'll work for free with Netflix to get a client working and we're talking people with professional code skills.

Netflix has consistantly said there will not be a netflix client for general purpose distributions. A big part of the issue is the silverlight DRM it relies on which is controled by Microsoft rather than Netflix. The DRM being released for opens source implementation or even licensed as a non-free bundle for general purpose distributions has about as much chance of happening as the sun going Nova in the next six hours.

Other than the obsurd hit one's monthly ISP caps would take, a netflix client for general purpose *nix platforms would be more than welcome by many but it would take enough market share for Netflix to really take notice and probably enough reduction in Microsoft's market share to force them to start grasping for straws to maintain shareholder dividends.

Reply Score: 3

Why do not have local storage?
by vtolkov on Fri 13th May 2011 01:23 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.

Maybe private cloud is the solution, but i dont want to manage my cloud either.

But iPad somehow solves this. It has lokal storage and pain-free management. Nothing prohibits having local storage in chrome-like system. It would just benefit users, when they, for example, want to take movie to watch during flight.

Reply Score: 0

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.


Backup Backup Backup

Reply Score: 6

vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

"It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.


Backup Backup Backup
"

And crypto.

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Yessr,

Keep your keepass database full of 20+ char random passwords on an Ironkey and keep your mobile computers properly protected with Truecrypt full disk encryption or Encrypted LVM.

If you want to get fancy, use an SD as your bootable partition and keep it with you leaving nothing in cleartext on the system drive.

(And the sooner cleartext protocols like http, ftp, imap, pop, smtp and so on can be replaced with encrypted counterparts.. the better.)

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

(And the sooner cleartext protocols like http, ftp, imap, pop, smtp and so on can be replaced with encrypted counterparts.. the better.)


There are more secure versions of all the protocols you mentioned, Https, sftp, imap with ssl or sla, smtp with ssl.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Exactly my reason for mentioning all the cleartext versions. The all have an encrypted version which is very easy to implement. Why on earth are we still transferring websites, files, email and the rest of it unencrypted?

To single out web pages, why are sites like osnews and techrepublic still asking for login in clear text? All websites really should be implementing https as the default with a fallback to http. Any page with a form field should default to https with no fall back. Yet, here we are still making a habit of connecting to webservers in cleartext.

Because a certificate from a CA is too expensive? 50$ a year.. woopty, the hosting and management can cost more than that yet it still gets done. Really, we should be finding ways to validate certificates without the third party racket of certificate authorities who really don't live up to the validating part of there service or charge exorbitant fees for more trust worthy certs (which still end up having backdoors in them by design or policy).

The other protocols I mentioned have even less business still using cleartext. Clear email from client to server and server to server? Why?

I look forward to the day when I open my network sniffer and can only tell what the protocol is and it's source and destination without nice clear payload packets to read.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

All the places I've worked at use those technologies already, if your organization isn't, it's time for you to start advocating their use.

Reply Score: 2

Femacamper Member since:
2009-05-26

Apple has spyware infested in all their products. Using the Ipad is like getting a borg link to your private thoughts.

Don't trust evil corporations: Apple, Google, Microsoft...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why do not have local storage?
by Neolander on Fri 13th May 2011 06:23 UTC in reply to "Why do not have local storage?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I understood everything save for how exactly iPads are supposed to solve this problem. They can be stolen and compromised like any other computer out there. I'd even argue that since they are so thin and light, it's even easier to steal them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why do not have local storage?
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 07:36 UTC in reply to "Why do not have local storage?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.


But iPad somehow solves this.


I don't understand you. An iPad is several times easier to steal than a desktop PC or even a laptop, and there's heaps and bounds of private data stored there. iPad's do not store everything in the cloud and as such they do not "solve" this in any way or form.

Reply Score: 4

vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

"It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.


But iPad somehow solves this.


I don't understand you. An iPad is several times easier to steal than a desktop PC or even a laptop, and there's heaps and bounds of private data stored there. iPad's do not store everything in the cloud and as such they do not "solve" this in any way or form.
"

Right, two different statements. I completely agree that traditional OSs torture users. But the root case is not a local storage. iPad is much easier to use, but it does uses local storage. And I would add some local storage to Chrome as well.

Another statement was that local storage is not much safer, comparing with cloud, if you have sensitive personal data. If they are encrypted, you can keep them locally or in cloud, it does not matter.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.

But iPad somehow solves this. It has lokal storage and pain-free management.


Uh, right. So local storage is bad...unless it's on an Apple device then it's good. Because.....it's an Apple device. And Chrome would also be ok...because...uh..it's chrome.
Lovely logic.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by AnyOneOrEvery1
by AnyOneOrEvery1 on Fri 13th May 2011 02:06 UTC
Android
by sb56637 on Fri 13th May 2011 05:33 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Why didn't they just use Android for this instead of reinventing the wheel and torturing their users with a GUI that runs on top of Xorg?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Android
by chekr on Fri 13th May 2011 05:40 UTC in reply to "Android"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

Horses for Courses, they would have to reimplement a lot of features that already exist in X onto the android platform for little gain. I hope they move to Wayland in the future though...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Android
by Lennie on Fri 13th May 2011 13:44 UTC in reply to "Android"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Because Android is not something Google is really interrested it, what they really want is webapps, not smartphone-apps.

I'm surprised they didn't create something like Palm/HP did, where apps can just use web-technologies.

Hell, even GNOME 3 Shell, KDE4/QT4 use Javascript/CSS

Reply Score: 3

New design paradigms
by siraf72 on Fri 13th May 2011 06:35 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

"I like the foolproof features Google has managed to shove into Chrome OS, and I'm certainly hoping Microsoft and Apple are exploring similar ideas for Windows and Mac OS X"

I suspect Apple is already doing this via iOS. Many design elements of iPad apps seem to be creeping into their desktop counterparts. I would not be surprised if Apple release a desktop version of iOS in the near future. A bit like Launcher or Simple Finder.

The difference is your data won't be handed over to Apple.... or will it ..

Reply Score: 1

benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

It is well understood by industry analysts that Google's business model is based on collecting data about you and using it for their profit.

Hence... they give you "free" use of products in exchange for your data -- consider Google Maps, Latitude, Search and Adwords, Gmail, Youtube, Google Books, Docs, etc.

Before using any Google product -- especially their Chrome computers and Android phones -- I would consider very carefully what the loss of your personal data will cost you.

I'm dumbfounded that some corporations use Google's "free" products without considering the ramifications of losing control over their own data.

Several cogent explanations of Google's business model at -- http://internetbusinessmodels.org/googlebusinessmodel/

Reply Score: 3

"Chromebooks"
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 08:02 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

"Chromebooks" might become somewhat popular as appliances, similar to how iPad et. al. are, but as a desktop PC or even a laptop PC replacement? Nope, there's still too many things people won't be able to do on a "Chromebook" and thus they'll still need to have a full-fledged PC to do the heavy lifting with. And thus they'll still have to do with "managing their computers" themselves. A "Chromebook" simply will not be some magical panacea that will cure all people and thus trying to sell it as such is either ignorance or false marketing.

One example of an activity that simply isn't feasible on a "Chromebook" and one that is still very popular among the general populace would be editing and creating home videos: you need local storage and more beef than what "Chromebooks" offer to do that. The ever growing number of videos on Youtube that people create is all the proof you need.

Reply Score: 4

RE: "Chromebooks"
by Lennie on Fri 13th May 2011 13:45 UTC in reply to ""Chromebooks""
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Take your average user: email, web, some casual gaming all of that is available for Chromebook.

It may not be for you, but the iPad probably isn't for you either.

Reply Score: 2

Dear Mr. Brin
by jbauer on Fri 13th May 2011 08:54 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

Can you bring us a system with all the features of Windows 7, but simpler and easier to use?

If that's not the case, shut up.

Edited 2011-05-13 08:58 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Dear Mr. Brin - why be limited?
by jabbotts on Fri 13th May 2011 15:15 UTC in reply to "Dear Mr. Brin"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Why limit yourself to only what Windows7 includes? Bring me the features of Debian's some thirty thousand available packages in a slick easy to use appliance interface or STFU Mr Brin. ;)

Reply Score: 2

I completely agree
by mgiammarco on Fri 13th May 2011 09:11 UTC
mgiammarco
Member since:
2006-04-25

In my opinion Brin is right as 200%.
I add more: he has discovered hot water. People thinks windows pc are good because they are never seen a good computer.

I remember 20 years ago Amiga 3000. It booted in LESS than a second and than you had a complete desktop with local applications and games (and it has 1MB of ram not 1GB). Oh and btw it just worked (no drivers problems, no updates needed, etc.)

Now the industry can only tell me that you can choose is only a computer that boots in a minute and will have problems (windows) or a chromebook that boots in only 6 seconds (ONLY???? compare this to amiga 3000... 6 times slower) but it has no applications....

Reply Score: 1

RE: I completely agree
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 09:19 UTC in reply to "I completely agree"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I remember 20 years ago Amiga 3000. It booted in LESS than a second and than you had a complete desktop with local applications and games (and it has 1MB of ram not 1GB). Oh and btw it just worked (no drivers problems, no updates needed, etc.)


Uhh, Amiga had a pre-defined set of hardware. It always had a specific motherboard, specific memory modules and so on. Windows and all other modern OSes on the other hand have to function with literally billions of different hardware combinations.

Not to mention the fact that Amiga didn't have any memory protections, DEP, etc. etc., and didn't do file-sharing, Internet and so on out-of-the-box..

In other words you're just displaying your own ignorance with comments like that. Of course it would be easy to boot into such a limited OS in seconds if you always had the same hardware.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I completely agree
by moondevil on Fri 13th May 2011 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE: I completely agree"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

And lets not forget that a big part of the OS was in ROM, so no time spent in loading the system from the floppies/hard disk.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I completely agree
by mgiammarco on Fri 13th May 2011 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I completely agree"
mgiammarco Member since:
2006-04-25

And lets not forget that a big part of the OS was in ROM, so no time spent in loading the system from the floppies/hard disk.


And so what? Is there a law that forbid pc and OS makers to not use ROM? Or a flash? Or a compact flash? or an SSD? Oh yes now explain me because windows on a 250mb/sec SSD is slower in booting than an amiga 3000 with a rom (with a bandwith less than a modern SSD) and a scsi hard disk that did 2mb/sec of transfer rate...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I completely agree
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I completely agree"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Oh yes now explain me because windows on a 250mb/sec SSD is slower in booting than an amiga 3000 with a rom



AmigaOS is something around a few megabytes in size whereas Windows is several gigabytes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I completely agree
by Lennie on Fri 13th May 2011 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I completely agree"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Why ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: I completely agree
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I completely agree"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Why ?


I'm tempted to say "bloat" as the answer.

But of course, there's even legitimate reasons why it's so big. Windows ships with thousands of drivers already included on the installation media itself so that it doesn't have to download it all from the Internet and that is obviously going to take its toll. And some driver manufacturers just happen to be god damn horrible in their practices and can't make lean code even if their lives depended on it. Like for example HP printer drivers themselves apparently take several hundreds of megabytes and the only way Microsoft could shave off on the size would be to rewrite the drivers from scratch with more talented coders, and HP obviously isn't going to let them do that, they want people to rely on them for their drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I completely agree
by Lennie on Fri 13th May 2011 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I completely agree"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You really can't tell me it's all just drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I completely agree
by JAlexoid on Sat 14th May 2011 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I completely agree"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

WindowsXP has a very narrow set of drivers, yet still manages to eat up 1.5GB on clean install. Linux with more drivers doesn't do that...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I completely agree
by bert64 on Sat 14th May 2011 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I completely agree"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Drivers don't take up *that* much space...

A modern linux distro has far more drivers than windows xp, and yet uses less space to install...

A modern linux distro comes with a large suite of applications, whereas windows ships with a handful of very crude applications most of which are designed to upsell you to bigger applications...

A single linux install also has support for multiple languages, whereas windows has separate versions for different language support...

The bloat is largely down to legacy cruft, for each library function in windows there are often several versions retained for backwards compatibility... Not only does this increase bloat, but massively increases complexity which is part of the reason why so many security holes are regularly found in windows... Simple is better from a security perspective.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: I completely agree
by mgiammarco on Fri 13th May 2011 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE: I completely agree"
RE[3]: I completely agree
by WereCatf on Fri 13th May 2011 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I completely agree"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

My little lamer


Personal insults are a sure-fire way of making you look mature, insightful and worth noting, right?

I for sure want more from the money I spend on modern OSes.


All you've been doing here has been complaining and comparing a 20 years old OS with about 1% of the features of a modern OS to a modern one, and you ignore all the features and all and instead just focus on boot speed... So, let's throw out all the 99% of features, shave the OS down to Windows 3.0 level, and then you'll be happy because it boots fast?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I completely agree
by bert64 on Sat 14th May 2011 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I completely agree"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23


All you've been doing here has been complaining and comparing a 20 years old OS with about 1% of the features of a modern OS to a modern one, and you ignore all the features and all and instead just focus on boot speed... So, let's throw out all the 99% of features, shave the OS down to Windows 3.0 level, and then you'll be happy because it boots fast?


Windows 3.0 was released in 1990, the same year as AmigaOS 2.0 and the Amiga 3000.

Windows 3.0 was already very slow and bloated, and did not compare favourably to AmigaOS 2.0 at all.

AmigaOS still booted faster than windows 3.0, even when windows was running on considerably faster hardware.
AmigaOS could support up to 4GB of address space.. Windows 3.0 could only support 16mb i believe.
AmigaOS was a standalone OS, windows 3.0 relied on dos.
AmigaOS had hardware accelerated video, windows 3.0 didn't.
Neither system had memory protection, DEP or anything of the sort.
Neither system had networking support out of the box.

Incidentally, how many of the new "features" do you use on a daily basis? A slimmed down OS would actually be far better for most things people do... Take a look at AROS, it's a clone of AmigaOS 3.0 ported to modern hardware with a few things added (eg tcp/ip stack by default), its capable of running modern apps like web browsers and playing high definition video, while still being blisteringly fast.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I completely agree
by Lennie on Fri 13th May 2011 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE: I completely agree"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm fairly certain the Chromebook has a predefined set of hardware too, just like Android, the iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I completely agree - Splash Top
by jabbotts on Fri 13th May 2011 15:17 UTC in reply to "I completely agree"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Actually, Splashtop's feature set may be a bit more than the Amiga OS of the 1MB RAM erra. But boot in just a few seconds with a set of usable applications? There you go.

Reply Score: 2

.
by Icaria on Fri 13th May 2011 11:26 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

Sure, ChromeOS is less complex - until you happen upon a use case not considered by Google. Then you'll spend all day devising workarounds just to do something simple.

Reply Score: 2

what about banking?
by Yamin on Fri 13th May 2011 12:26 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

Ever notice how you can logon to your bank and see all your accounts, transaction history, personal information... yet no one throws a fit?

For a variety of reasons that industry has 'earned' the trust of people when it comes to storing personal information.

Google and other companies simply have to gain our trust on that same level. I don't think it's impossible either. It's just a matter of the right regulations, SLA's, technology improvements (client side encryption), maybe a few lawsuits when breaches occur...

Give it some time... there was a time I didn't trust online mail... now I only use online mail.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what about banking?
by AnyoneEB on Fri 13th May 2011 22:34 UTC in reply to "what about banking?"
AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

The difference is that the bank needs to have that information in order to provide their services and there is no way to get those services without trusting a third party. I would certainly prefer a bank account where my bank did not know the details of my transactions, but excepting possibly some cryptographic money scheme no one has implemented in the real world, that is not possible.

I am okay with GMail for a similar reason: my mail provider is going to see all of my mail anyway, so they might as well let me view it from a web browser.

On the other hand, I do not need a third party to hold my documents. That said, there is no reason why ChromeOS necessarily has to be used with Google's services (well, I guess when running Google's firmware it will install any updates Google pushes, but simply trusting a different key would fix that). The idea of using a highly portable device as a thin client to servers under my control (or, more realistically, under the control of the company which owns the devices) could make sense for a lot of users. Unfortunately, there is no open source equivalent of Google Docs and, as far as I know, Google isn't selling private Google Docs servers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: what about banking?
by mkone on Sat 14th May 2011 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: what about banking?"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Well, unless you want to pay for search, advertising, and by extension collecting information about the users is pretty much your (and my) payment to use Google.

Reply Score: 1

RE: what about banking?
by Soulbender on Sun 15th May 2011 06:13 UTC in reply to "what about banking?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Ever notice how you can logon to your bank and see all your accounts, transaction history, personal information... yet no one throws a fit?


Ever notice how you can log in to your Google account and see your Google account details? Seriously.
The reason you see those details when logging in to your bank is because...you logged in to the bank. It's the nature of the business you do with them that they have the actual information that pertains to that business. It has nothing to with trust.

For a variety of reasons that industry has 'earned' the trust of people when it comes to storing personal information.


I don't think anyone trusts banks any more than they trust google. As in your example, you entrust different entities with different information but you generally don't entrust your google details to your bank, your details with bank A to bank B or your bank details to google.

Reply Score: 2

Self managed central server
by jabbotts on Fri 13th May 2011 13:42 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

This would be very interesting for business of Google ever started selling a network appliance companies could keep within there own network and which did not tunnel information back to google in the background.

An onsite appliance managed by the company that owns the data.. very interesting indeed. A Google hosted server managed by a third party with no direct interest in protecting your data.. hell no.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Self managed central server
by Lennie on Fri 13th May 2011 13:51 UTC in reply to "Self managed central server"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Anyone could start such a business pretty easily, someone just needs to take ChromiumOS and change to what server it would talk to.

It would be easy to start, just employ Hexxeh:
http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/

Edited 2011-05-13 13:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Self managed central server
by jabbotts on Fri 13th May 2011 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Self managed central server"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

That could be very interesting indeed. Include the mozilla sync server in there and it becomes even more interesting.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Sync/1.1/Setup

(I think this is going to be my weekend project. FF sync that I can host from my own server.. yessir.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Self managed central server
by JAlexoid on Sat 14th May 2011 10:41 UTC in reply to "Self managed central server"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Maybe they will.... They still sell their search appliances.

Reply Score: 2

Deja Vu
by ferrix on Sat 14th May 2011 02:37 UTC
ferrix
Member since:
2005-07-06

This whole 'moving the applications and data to the cloud' just makes my blood boil. We've been there before, you know - 'cloud' is just another word for server and this is just a rehash of the original model of computing. But I am old enough to remember when PCs started to appear, and how excited we were precisely BECAUSE they allowed us to move applications and data away from remote servers controlled by the chosen few right to our desktop for users to manage and control as they wanted. Believe it or not, it was a revolution in IT: the arrival of personal computing.

And now we're not only supposed to give it up, but to believe this is something new, and it is better for us? Being in charge of my own stuff is supposed to be torture now? I think not! Reading this sort of nonsense does get pretty painful after a while though ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Deja Vu
by Sauron on Sat 14th May 2011 04:09 UTC in reply to "Deja Vu"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Heh yeah. We really do not want to return to the server and dumb client days, please NO! Trouble is, that's the way things are heading. An interesting point is most folk I talk to whom run Windows, run it because they are gamers not for anything else. If Microsoft decided to follow this route how many users would decide to change OS's because they considered Windows useless for their needs? I don't think Microsoft would let that happen but then again, they made some stupid moves in the past!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Deja Vu
by BluenoseJake on Sat 14th May 2011 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Deja Vu"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

They've made some stupid moves in the past, true, but one thing they really have never done is shoot the cash cow. They'll add the capability to Windows, but they won't cripple it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Deja Vu
by JAlexoid on Sat 14th May 2011 10:43 UTC in reply to "Deja Vu"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And a plain user loosing all his data when his HDD dies is a blessing how?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Deja Vu
by ferrix on Sun 15th May 2011 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Deja Vu"
ferrix Member since:
2005-07-06

Red herring. The alternative to moving everything to the cloud is not 'user loses all his data because his HD crashed' - the alternative is simply 'user manages what is his'. No more, no less.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Deja Vu
by JAlexoid on Mon 16th May 2011 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Deja Vu"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Fact of life - "users" are crap at managing their own data. In fact, even the techies are rather crap at that. I know I forget to do backups, I bet you do too.

Reply Score: 2

Models of computing
by Norsk on Sat 14th May 2011 23:07 UTC
Norsk
Member since:
2007-12-07

The difference between the current era of computing and the pre cloud era, is quite straight forward. Back then, and I'm talking about when the movement was from client/server within business and education to personal computing - we didn't have multiple devices to manage our data on. That simple. Heck, we essentially didn't have any to manage. We as consumers, are using more and more devices as technology expands. Hence the expansion of networking technologies, and hence 'The Cloud' for consumers.

The chromebook is just a natural progression of course ..if google didn't do it, someone else would have. As to whether you agree with it's implementation or not, it's a simple choice. Trust, or don't trust. But for me, the ultimate implementation would be a choice of what exactly, and how much of my particular data I choose to not be local.

Dropbox is a good example for myself. I choose exactly what I want to sync to the cloud, and choose what I think is too sensitive ..and back that up myself. The question is, can people with no technical ability make that correct choice, while knowing how to keep all their data safe ?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Tedstriker
by Tedstriker on Sun 15th May 2011 00:05 UTC
Tedstriker
Member since:
2011-01-24

WIndows will be on top for a long time. Its one thing for people to use tablets and alternative OS's for personal use, but for actually accomplishing tasks and making your business more productive, you'll have a hard time getting people away from Windows.

Allot of companies out there still use office 2003, and windows XP, because it meets their needs. Unless these new systems can make people more productive, and give them a good reason to spend thousands on a new design, they'll simply be another fad, kinda like tablets...

Edited 2011-05-15 00:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

toomuchtatose
Member since:
2011-05-15

The statement only apply to entities (i.e. human users, organisations) that does not view information (or data) as critical part of its function but only one of the tools available.

Outsourcing IT administration to a third party is actually a common practice internationally, the point divergent is that the degree one outsources and availability for the client (and vendor) to handle service maladjustments that are not controllable.

Likewise, Google also pointed one harsh fact that technology is increasing the demand for organisations to keep abreast. IT administrators and integrators are far too specialised into their fields to be deployed as permanent in-house fixture, especially for small business and where IT availability (and as competitive advantage) is not important.

But of course for the lay-users who know nothing about intellectual property and privacy leaks (look at facebook). Giving them a complex OS solves nothing, people still pirate windows, browsing webpages on outdated internet browser, they are still on facebook, talking crap on forums as if there's an illusion of anonymity... I'd say something simple and foolproof serves better for the long term.

Only more technical demanding users will appreciate something called "More > advanced options" at the bottom right hand corner of the screen.

Reply Score: 1

Not fair
by sbergman27 on Sun 15th May 2011 18:55 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I can certainly see that there is a problem here. In essence, Microsoft has a monopoly on eSadism, today. Other eSadists should have a chance to torture users in new and innovative ways. And eMasochists should be free to seek out new masochistic experiences without having to give up the familiar pain points which have become staples (no pun intended) in their lives.

Reply Score: 2

Good old Serghei
by twitterfire on Sun 15th May 2011 21:05 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I have an idea, let's torture Serghei. Let's tie him to a chair, in front of a desktop. Or better yet, let's tie him to a chair in front of a Chromebook and tell him to do some coding stuff. Or any other stuff beside browsing the web and playing with the marvelous google docs.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Computers can be improved a hell of a lot. Using the Cloud will not make them easier to use.

Reply Score: 2