It’s cute that M$ has decided to drop its name for its next GUI. It’s so sad when marketing droids actually do contribute some creativity to an organization and are shot down like that. In the interests of humanity I wish to offer up unique nomenclature to help M$ survive the lawyers…
| Product/Feature | My Suggestion |
|---|---|
| M$’s flagship OS | That Other OS |
| The Ribbon | Half-time Show of Random Marching Strands |
| M$’s office suite | Desktop Clutter 2012 |
| Internet Exploder | Internet Exploder |
| IIS | Last Week’s Spaghetti From the Fridge Services |
| inActive Directory | inActive Directory |
| …Updates | Monopolistic Tentacles version 3.0 |
| EULA | Application for Enslavement |
| “partner” | Sucker |
| bundle | The Price of Our OS is so High We Are Afraid to Show It… |
Microsoft Replaces 'Metro' Branding With Windows 8 Branding | TheTechJournal.
17503
12806
206
3
2
23959 
11874 
11726 
4664 
4279 
1643 
198 
14 
2 
1 
0 
0 
Internet Exploiter
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Advocacy-6.html
“Refer to another product by its proper name. There’s nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using ‘creative spelling’. If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.“
Metro –> Fisher Price
I would think that an old fellow like yourself would be embarrassed to be seen in the company of these juveniles, Mr. Pogson. Don’t you really wish you hadn’t made this post?
Ted echoed, ” If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products”.
M$ gives no respect to the world when it defines “PC” as a personal computer with its OS or chooses a generic term from IT as a product name, something that is not allowed in law. M$ gives no respect to OEMs, retailers or consumers in its illegal trade practices, bullying and the like. If M$ were a natural person M$ would have been in jail long ago. M$ does not deserve my respect. Using the names M$ gives products merely supports the monopoly. We should fight the monopoly in every way possible for it does a lot of harm and very little good in the world.
Wow, nice circle-jerking by the happy Linux friends.
As for Mr. Pogson: you are truly a pathological case. Go seek professional help before your mugshot is all over the news.
You’re the sort of clown who’s not even taken seriously by Linus Torvalds.
M$ gives no respect to the world when it defines “PC” as a personal computer with its OS or chooses a generic term from IT as a product name
I thought that’s was supposed to be Apple’s spiel. You know, “Mac vs. PC”? Never mind.
Brillo one of head of Microsoft did the I am a PC advertisements. Apple did not start the PC term being used for Microsoft OS installed machines.
M$ gives no respect to the world when it defines “PC” as a personal computer with its OS
That is a a short-sighted and wrong view of things, Mr. Pogson. The IBM Personal Computer became known quickly as the “PC” due to IBM’s popularizing the term and a decade and more of Microsoft OS associated with it made the combination, and its many clones, synonymous with the term. I don’t think you can say that Microsoft did anything proactively to enter the term into the vernacular.
Apple recognized this with their PC vs Mac characterization ads some years ago.
It is the computer buying public who have defined the term, Mr. Pogson, and Linux is not in their recognition range.
Ted’s cite also contains the warning: “Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community. “
That is good advice and should cause you to separate yourself from these school boy acts.
Clarence Moon wrote:
“That is good advice and should cause you to separate yourself from these school boy acts.”
Are you serious? You should talk with the crap that comes from the mouthes of the Cult of Microsoft. Separate yourself from them if you can.
They came here to spread their poop all over this blog in the hope of censoring it. It didn’t work thanks to Robert Pogson. They return now and then just to refresh. This blog is on their hit list and willfully or not, you are a part of their effort.
Mr Pogson,
how sad that even here you can’t even use the correct product names in the left-hand colomn. As for your name calling:
“That Other OS”
Right, the OS that is used on the vast majority of PCs and an overall majority of servers surely must be “That Other OS”.
“The Ribbon: Half-time Show of Random Marching Strands”
Actually, the ribbon is The Solution for the problem that for applications as feature-rich as MSO the classic menu simply doesn’t cut it any more.
“M$’s office Suite: Desktop Clutter 2012″
The current version is from 2010 and “it’s big because your needs are big”.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
“Internet Exploder: Internet Exploder
IIS: Last Week’s Spaghetti From the Fridge Services”
Yeah, ItsStill95(TM). Just keep on telling yourself that: It’s still ’95, and MS hasn’t improved anything.
“inActive Directory”
Just because you haven’t learned how to use it doesn’t mean it’s bad.
“…Updates: Monopolistic Tentacles version 3.0″
So it would be better if MS offered no updates?
“EULA: Application for Enslavement
“partner”: Sucker”
No.
“bündle: The Price of Our OS is so High We Are Afraid to Show It… ”
Over here, the retail price for Home Premium is less than €100, so the OEM Price is a lot lower. Scary, isn’t it?
ch, acknowledging M$’s bloatware, wrote, “the ribbon is The Solution for the problem that for applications as feature-rich as MSO the classic menu simply doesn’t cut it any more.”
The application is about producing documents, files representing or generating pieces of paper with lines and images on them. Folks like/need some regions of whitespace and some regions of information/black/colour. They don’t need random clutter which is what bloatware gives. The right way to add a particular feature that may be of use to some small niche of users is a plugin/extension. Throwing every feature known to man into the application is madness.
Menus are the right way to do applications and the size of the menu matters. Imagine going into a restaurant where the menu is the size of a paper phonebook. Compare that image with going into a Mom and Pop diner with 8 selections written in chalk on the wall. Which is more efficient use of one’s time?
Consider a watery analogue. If you have a river formed from a few streams merging you have a powerful system moving stuff. If you have hundreds of streams meeting all at once, you have a swamp, good for creepy-crawlies but not people.
Oiaohm, in a psychotic episode, mumbles, “Brillo one of head of Microsoft did the I am a PC advertisements”
You mean the advertisements For Windows 7?
http://vimeo.com/7233119
Not to be out done by his fellow, PR scribles the following Luddite nonsense:
“They don’t need random clutter which is what bloatware gives.”
You mean “random clutters” like tables, foot/endnotes, TOC, image/object insertions etc. etc. etc?
Oh, of course, that’s because Mr. Pogson says so!
“files representing or generating pieces of paper with lines and images on them. Folks like/need some regions of whitespace and some regions of information/black/colour.”
And a whole lot more, these days. Mr Pogson, I don’t have a Problem with your needs WRT word processing are so low they could probably be met with WordPad – could you please accept that some of us need more from their applications?
“The right way to add a particular feature that may be of use to some small niche of users is a plugin/extension.”
No, definitively not. There is a place for plug-ins (e.g. Excel’s Chart modul has been a DLL/COM/ActiveX plugin since the dawn of time), but doing everything as plug-ins would be a maintenance nightmare for developers and users.
“Menus are the right way to do applications and the size of the menu matters. Imagine going into a restaurant where the menu is the size of a paper phonebook. Compare that image with going into a Mom and Pop diner with 8 selections written in chalk on the wall. Which is more efficient use of one’s time?”
Choice, Mr Pogson, it’s about choice. If you are content with just 8 dishes, that’s fine – I prefer some more because it means I’m more likely to find what I really want to eat.
Regarding application menues: The original CUA Guidelines suggested that menues should have no more than seven columns with no more than seven options each. But Word 2003 exceeded 250 menu and sub-menu options – that’s why the Ribbon. Look at LO Write and count the menu options if you like
(And please read the article I linked to.)
ch wrote, “But Word 2003 exceeded 250 menu and sub-menu options – that’s why the Ribbon. Look at LO Write and count the menu options if you like “.
I did. LibreOffice has half the number and it’s quite usable without a search engine to find them. LibreOffice has fully editable menu bars so the tasks frequently done can be accessed in a single click, far superior to “the ribbon”.
Bloat is the natural result of a monopoly needing to sell the next licence. M$ has to constantly introduce “new features” even if very few use them. They change file formats to pressure others to upgrade to deal with imported bloat. LibreOffice has no need for bloat. Indeed LibreOffice has improved on OpenOffice.org by stripping dead code and optimizing other code.
“They change file formats to pressure others to upgrade”
You’re still living in the last century. Since 1997, the only change in MSO file formats was the move to an XML-based format in 2007.
You’re still living in the last century. Since 1997, the only change in MSO file formats was the move to an XML-based format in 2007.
Things are so because Mr. Pogson says so.
Don’t you ever forget that!
Bloat is the natural result of a monopoly needing to sell the next licence. M$ has to constantly introduce “new features” even if very few use them.
That’s a funny assertion. Then why isn’t FLOSS standing still? They don’t need to sell something, yet new versions of software are released constantly, with many a change pissing users off. And isn’t LibreOffice planning a grand Ribbon-like redesign?
Chris Weig wrote, “Then why isn’t FLOSS standing still? They don’t need to sell something, yet new versions of software are released constantly, with many a change pissing users off. And isn’t LibreOffice planning a grand Ribbon-like redesign?”
There is a difference between adding necessary features and increasing performance/reliability and making the product different so that old products become obsolete faster. I have not seen much in FLOSS that renders previous versions obsolete due to changes in file-formats or protocols. XP/2003 could not tolerate Lose ’98 on the network. “7″ could not share with XP. etc. LibreOffice has actually been stripping useless code lately.
There could be another fork if LibreOffice pushes “the ribbon”. I don’t know anyone who likes it. There has to be some good reason to make such a drastic change and I have not seen it.
“It’s your choice what to work on, and we’ll design for pretty much anything. The changes have to be incremental, though, so no Ribbon.”
see http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2012-06-30
“I did. LibreOffice has half the number”
I just fired up – okay, strictly speaking it was more like “start and wait” than “firing up” – LO 3.4.2 in a VM. The File menu alone has over 70 options! With Edit and View, it’s already way over 100. Insert and Format yield another 100. Please note that it’s about menus and sub-menus.
“LibreOffice has fully editable menu bars so the tasks frequently done can be accessed in a single click, far superior to “the ribbon”.”
Please stop talking about something you don’t know to someone who actually knows (and uses) it, it’s like a blind person lecturing you about the color of your shirt. With the ribbon, I can attach whatever I want to the top of the ribbon as a shortcut. What’s more, the most-used commands are right there in your Start ribbon – one click away. Accessing something on a different ribbon requires exactly two clicks: One to activate that ribbon, the other on whatever you want done. How many clicks does it require to select any menu option? Right, the same two clicks.
“There is a difference between adding necessary features and increasing performance/reliability and making the product different so that old products become obsolete faster.”
I’m sorry, but that sounds awefully close to “If FLOSS adds features, that’s good, but when MS adds features, that’s bloat.”
“XP/2003 could not tolerate Lose ’98 on the network.”
IIRC it could – but of course Win9x doesn’t know the first thing about AD domains. (Yes, I know: AD is bloat as well – says the man who claimed to be a Windows admin but didn’t bother to learn how to use AD.)
““7″ could not share with XP. etc.”
Oh, but they can – you only need to tell the newer versions to be less strict about security. Yes, that’s right: 7/2008 introduced a safer method for logging in. But I guess that a new safety feature in Windows is bloat, too?
ch wrote, ““XP/2003 could not tolerate Lose ’98 on the network.”
IIRC it could – but of course Win9x doesn’t know the first thing about AD domains. “
It was nothing about inActiveDirectory. Lose ’98 had no security and could bypass anything inActiveDirectory told the network. One could print from Lose ’98 (directly to the printer not the server) or browse the web without logging into the network. I used that feature to download my .isos for installing GNU/Linux in that school. I took a Lose ’98 machine out of storage and hooked it up to the network. Of course, my employer could have controlled the router to block that access but they had not at the time. The Lose ’98 machines had been ripped out by a contractor over the summer and I was in school before opening so I did what was necessary to survive before the system was fully configured. I had GNU/Linux available to me and my students on Day One. By the time I learned there was a policy against running Lose ’98, I had already installed GNU/Linux on the old machines and used them as thin clients giving my students superior performance for $0 cost to my employer.
It was nothing about inActiveDirectory. Lose ’98 had no security
So what do you want Active Directory to do? Make Windows 98 understands ACE and Group Policy even though it has no means to do so? Are you going to complain as well because you can’t run Linux kernel modules on NT?
That’s just ludicrous.
One could print from Lose ’98 (directly to the printer not the server) or browse the web without logging into the network.
Unless you have set up the network incorrectly, no you can’t.
Now, a few questions:
1) Why was the client in the same IP subnet/physical network as the printer (assuming that it’s network capable) if you did’t want the client to have direct access to it?
2) If the printer was not network capable (i.e. it’s a printer share from a machine), then with what royal mess-up did you even manage in the first place to make it print without a login name and password?
3) Again, if you don’t want people to access the Internet unauthenticated, then where on earth is the proxy server?
Look – the more you arm-wave about Windows, the more it is apparent that you don’t even know the basics of setting up a network properly – let alone the nitty-gritty stuff of installing an AD and so forth. Don’t you have no shame?
“Lose ’98 had no security and could bypass anything inActiveDirectory told the network.”
More to the point, it simply didn’t know about AD (which was developed after Win98) and thus couldn’t use it. But it could connect to server OSes like NT or Netware using their security mechanisms. But IIRC Win2000/2003 server had a backwards-compatible mode so Win98 should have been able to access it as if it was an NT server.
However, you wrote first: “XP/2003 could not tolerate Lose ’98 on the network.” What exactly did you mean by “could not tolerate” ?
“Look – the more you arm-wave about Windows, the more it is apparent that you don’t even know the basics of setting up a network properly”
Mr Pogson, this point is troubling me, too. So according to your own narrations, you worked for years as a Windows administrator but never bothered to actually learn about Windows administration ?