Too old for an iPod?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 12 Mar 2010 12:05 On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:40:34 +0000, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> >> It's amazing what can be done with simple software though, in the >> right hands. > >It is, but this isn't simple software. This is quite complicated >software made many times worse because it was built entirely to >specifications. (I was talking of daughter and Paint). > >ie: someone said 'here is a list of features that it must have, go and >write it'. It was written and every feature was ticked off one by one. Oh I'm sure and know a couple of software boys so am aware of their frustrations. > >> The thing is she only needs to be shown once, and generally only the >> core concepts at that and she's away. Unfortunately, like many of her >> age / background (brought up with technical stuff) it's difficult to >> get her to RTFM. > >It is difficult to get almost everyone to RTFM which is why no-one >really WTFM any more! And I guess with good design and help prompts you shouldn't need to in all but the most complex of tasks. I was at my mates the other day and I noticed he was getting admin notes from his Exchange server saying his mailbox was reaching it's upper limit. I had the password to the server so logged and to have a look about. Whilst I have played with a few mail systems in my time I'd never really played with exchange but, because of the pop_up_help was guided to the area where I could override the default storage limits. I didn't change it but could have. Similarly I wasn't able to get Ubuntu server, FreeNAS, or Openfiler configured (without the manuals) because there weren't always popups, telling me that I couldn't allocate C until I had completed steps A and B and I often had no idea how to do A and B even once I knew I had to. (What is the right 'mount point' for the data drive and which of the obscure descriptors is the 2nd hard drive anyway!). In less time than I wasted on any of those I installed a WHS (well no, it took much longer to actually install (but pretty much all on it's own) and then it took no time at all to configure and get working. And not only is it working but it's doing all sorts of stuff *I* probably would never got working using any other software. This isn't a pro MS comment but a pro 'making it idiot proof' one. I would have liked to have used one of the alternatives, for their resistance to malware as much as the fact they were free and (supposedly) reliable, it's just with my lack of experience with the general Linux type Cmd line thing it was all too complicated and un intuitive. Cheers, T i m
From: Woody on 12 Mar 2010 12:21 On 12/03/2010 17:05, T i m wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:40:34 +0000, Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> > wrote: > >>> >>> It's amazing what can be done with simple software though, in the >>> right hands. >> >> It is, but this isn't simple software. This is quite complicated >> software made many times worse because it was built entirely to >> specifications. > > (I was talking of daughter and Paint). I know, I was refering to the banks software. >> ie: someone said 'here is a list of features that it must have, go and >> write it'. It was written and every feature was ticked off one by one. > > Oh I'm sure and know a couple of software boys so am aware of their > frustrations. >> >>> The thing is she only needs to be shown once, and generally only the >>> core concepts at that and she's away. Unfortunately, like many of her >>> age / background (brought up with technical stuff) it's difficult to >>> get her to RTFM. >> >> It is difficult to get almost everyone to RTFM which is why no-one >> really WTFM any more! > > And I guess with good design and help prompts you shouldn't need to in > all but the most complex of tasks. With a good design most people wont need manuals and those that do still don't read them. And ultimately even if you write the best manual in the world, it will *still* be quicker to type the question in google! A good design doesn't necessarily have to be the easiest for people to use, for specific software it is often better to make it familiar. That is why things like open office copy word a bit, it is harder to use that way for a beginner as it isnt' really logical, but it is more familiar for most people. > I was at my mates the other day and I noticed he was getting admin > notes from his Exchange server saying his mailbox was reaching it's > upper limit. I had the password to the server so logged and to have a > look about. Whilst I have played with a few mail systems in my time > I'd never really played with exchange but, because of the pop_up_help > was guided to the area where I could override the default storage > limits. I didn't change it but could have. > > Similarly I wasn't able to get Ubuntu server, FreeNAS, or Openfiler > configured (without the manuals) because there weren't always popups, > telling me that I couldn't allocate C until I had completed steps A > and B and I often had no idea how to do A and B even once I knew I had > to. (What is the right 'mount point' for the data drive and which of > the obscure descriptors is the 2nd hard drive anyway!). Unfortunatly there is a dark side to these things, which is exactly why you see this. There are more exploits for windows IIS server and remote hacks than there are for Apache. As a general rule of thumb it is easier to take down a windows server than a unix server. Apart from issues about security models and structure, one of the big factors in this is ease of use. A child could set IIS up, it is a lot harder to set up Apache without the documentation. And that is what happens. Children (by which of course I mean middle managers) set up IIS to be really bad, whereas the people who read the docs on Apache had to work out what the options were actually for. > In less time than I wasted on any of those I installed a WHS (well no, > it took much longer to actually install (but pretty much all on it's > own) and then it took no time at all to configure and get working. And > not only is it working but it's doing all sorts of stuff *I* probably > would never got working using any other software. This isn't a pro MS > comment but a pro 'making it idiot proof' one. Sadly it doesn't make it idiot proof, it makes it idiot accessible. Whereas that isn't an issue for media centers, it is a major problem in servers. I have been trawling through my web application hacking and mac osx hacking books, and it really is 5% software, 95% human errors in these things. And it is a really is a nasty world out there. > I would have liked to have used one of the alternatives, for their > resistance to malware as much as the fact they were free and > (supposedly) reliable, it's just with my lack of experience with the > general Linux type Cmd line thing it was all too complicated and un > intuitive. Yes, the two are not completely unrelated. -- Woody
From: T i m on 12 Mar 2010 13:30 On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:21:56 +0000, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> And I guess with good design and help prompts you shouldn't need to in >> all but the most complex of tasks. > >With a good design most people wont need manuals and those that do still >don't read them. ;-) >And ultimately even if you write the best manual in the world, it will >*still* be quicker to type the question in google! There is that. Then again, I often find myself helping people over the phone where I'm getting the answer off Google for them as they are asking it. A recent couple being installing a free font in Vista (I've never done that before) and removing a particular bit of malware (again from Vista). Re the latter I'd even emailed them the link to the manual removal page (that I would have said my Mum could have read and managed if not actually understood) yet still they kept phoning me back to hand-hold them through it? > >A good design doesn't necessarily have to be the easiest for people to >use, for specific software it is often better to make it familiar. Is that the 'Common look and feel' thang (so would be common as in familiar if already used to that particular OS)? > That >is why things like open office copy word a bit, it is harder to use that >way for a beginner as it isnt' really logical, but it is more familiar >for most people. Ah, I'd not noticed that as I'm not much of a Office user in either guise (and generally wouldn't notice it anyway if it was familiar to me eh (and your point above)). > >> >> Similarly I wasn't able to get Ubuntu server, FreeNAS, or Openfiler >> configured (without the manuals) because there weren't always popups, >> telling me that I couldn't allocate C until I had completed steps A >> and B and I often had no idea how to do A and B even once I knew I had >> to. (What is the right 'mount point' for the data drive and which of >> the obscure descriptors is the 2nd hard drive anyway!). > >Unfortunatly there is a dark side to these things, which is exactly why >you see this. >There are more exploits for windows IIS server and remote hacks than >there are for Apache. I would have predicted that. >As a general rule of thumb it is easier to take >down a windows server than a unix server. And that. >Apart from issues about security models and structure, one of the big >factors in this is ease of use. And hence my predicament. Why some people only bother to take their test in an auto I guess. > >A child could set IIS up, it is a lot harder to set up Apache without >the documentation. And that is what happens. I know, I taught basic Netware courses and slowing saw the Netware user base being eroded by NT. Mainly because it was easier to install / tweak (but probably cost more to maintain). > Children (by which of >course I mean middle managers) set up IIS to be really bad, whereas the >people who read the docs on Apache had to work out what the options were >actually for. As I said, I would have liked to have used a non MS solution but soon found all the (affordable) solutions 'it's_going_through_the_window' frustrating and normally I have the patience of a Saint. The last time I experienced that level of frustration was when trying Mac newsreaders. > >> In less time than I wasted on any of those I installed a WHS (well no, >> it took much longer to actually install (but pretty much all on it's >> own) and then it took no time at all to configure and get working. And >> not only is it working but it's doing all sorts of stuff *I* probably >> would never got working using any other software. This isn't a pro MS >> comment but a pro 'making it idiot proof' one. > >Sadly it doesn't make it idiot proof, it makes it idiot accessible. Whatever it's called the outcome is the same. I wanted a solution, I tried several and the only one I could get fully working was the M$ one. >Whereas that isn't an issue for media centers, it is a major problem in >servers. Understood. > I have been trawling through my web application hacking and mac >osx hacking books, and it really is 5% software, 95% human errors in >these things. I'm sure you are right. >And it is a really is a nasty world out there. I know. However, for most people the risk is simply the price we pay for having a solution at all. If I hadn't got this WHS I probably still wouldn't have a NAS / Server / backup solution as I would have simply given up. I guess it partly comes down to effort. If your boss asks you to learn something you do. If you are doing an OU course and fancy a subject you aren't already familar with you do your research. If you simply want a working solution you might, after a look around take the path of least resistance (even though you may be aware it might not be the 'best' solution). "I can't pass a manual car test so I'll stick with an auto" sorta thing. > >> I would have liked to have used one of the alternatives, for their >> resistance to malware as much as the fact they were free and >> (supposedly) reliable, it's just with my lack of experience with the >> general Linux type Cmd line thing it was all too complicated and un >> intuitive. > >Yes, the two are not completely unrelated. But (ideal world and all that) they needn't be need they? I mean, I think the answer is 'No, they needn't be' if you take Ubuntu for example. I still *know* little about Linux but Ubuntu masks me from most of it via it's fairly slick installer(s) and good hardware probe and driver support. I have been building / supporting computers and electronic kit for over 20 years and worked out DOS on my own. Windows was easy (never been on a course for any of it) but in spite of playing with Linux over a similar period I actually know little more about it (as in understanding) than I did at the beginning. Linux has got brighter, I haven't. Partly because I find it a steep learning curve and partly because I've never had *need* to learn it further. Cheers, T i m p.s. Whilst building this WHS I've dug out some other hardware and now I've got the WHS there and running I can now re-visit some of the other solutions and see how far I can get. I think the most likely candidate is probably Ubuntu Server with WebAdmin. Then again, I don't think there is anything to compare with the Drive Extender for it's flexibility. The ability to add any drive to the Pool yet still be able to attach any drive from the pool to any Windows box and still be able to easily access my data. No sure you can do that with the likes of ZFS?
From: Jim on 13 Mar 2010 01:15 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >That'll be it (the Window aspect). On a MacOS X machine if you control-click > >a link that's surrounded by <>'s there's a very good chance it will work, > >even if it's split over several lines. > > It's an Agent failing, nowt to do with Windows per se. Actually, now I'm back on a Mac and in a position to check, it's not actually very consistent. If you Command-cick (not ctrl) a link in MacSOUP that's surrounded by <>'s there's a good chance it will work (even if split over several lines), but trying the same thing in TextEdit doesn't work. If you Control (not Command) click you get a menu with 'Open URL' as one of the options but it doesn't work for split URLs. So I'm wrong. Sorry, all. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Jim on 13 Mar 2010 13:53
Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > Just when I was thinking you were a paragon of patience and "not rising > > > to the bait" you blow your record of saintliness. <shakes head sadly> > > > > You've just failed to fully appreciate my rapier-like wit. I was playing > > along. > > You've just failed to fully appreciate my rapier-like wit. > I was playing along. You obviously fail to appreciate that you're playing along with my play. And yours. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats) http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you. |