|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What's really a hassle is when your credit card somehow gets compromised,
Hell, not even that. Credit cards expire every X years (at my bank X=3), forcing you to go make changes even if it never got compromised. I just had mine expire recently and had to go to probably 15 different websites to change nothing more than the expiration date or lose access to my stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What's really a hassle is when your credit card somehow gets compromised, forcing you to cancel it and get a new one, only to have to go back to your ever-growing multitude of paid subscriptions and reset the goddamn credit card that's used to pay them. I HATE that.
Sounds like a business model waiting to happen: Register all your paid services/subscriptions, then when the card gets compromised or expires, you update its details once, then let these guys go out to each service you've previously registered to deal with the update.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a web site begging to be hacked.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I realized I was posting it that any such site would have the biggest bullseye imaginable painted on it. I was certainly not volunteering to do it. 
But if it had half-decent security, would it be any worse than the system we have right now?
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: As much as you may like to think your preferred model fits (or should fit) everyone else, that's most certainly not the case.
Oddly enough that was the entire point of the post.
His math to discredit a successful model clearly doesn't hold across the board.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: compounded that mistake by reading the comments where some random idiot
[...]
MehGerbil wrote: If you want to hate Microsoft load up Linux and Open Office and go play with yourself.
Stop hating on products you clearly don't use or understand.
You sure told that random idiot.
Too bad he's never gonna get to read your otherwise pretty good rant.
|
|
|
|
|
I use office 2013 and visio 2016 at work, and I quite simply cannot express to you how much I hate those useless, time-wasting, bug-filled cr@ppy programs.
All of my machines at home have office 2003 on them -- the last version before it all went to Hell.
I paid the right price for those licenses, and I can, as the person you so harshly deride for having an opinion contrary to yours says, use them for as long as I like.
365 users, on the other hand, will be paying through the nose for ever and ever, not only for their vastly inferior and productivity-murdering version, but for the privilege of having all their documents put at risk/held to ransom, and for the total dearth of privacy that they get as part of the deal.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Please explain to me how 365 Office subscribers are paying through the nose for licenses when my per license cost is $20 per year. If you paid ~$300.00 for your license in 2003 (with Access) your average cost to date is $23.00 per year.
By the time you put a backup scheme in place (1TB per license with Office 365) you are spending more for Office than I am... spending more for the privilege of using 13 year old software that is no longer supported and doesn't get updated.
The rest of your post is FUD.
There has been no risk/ransom uncommon to any Office product.
Choose what you want but the 'paying through the nose' nonsense isn't supported by your post.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: my per license cost is $20 per year Forever!
MehGerbil wrote: your license in 2003 (with Access) your average cost to date is $23.00 per year.
And getting less and less every year, whilst yours will get higher and higher. And I never have to worry about what kind of ridiculous licensing policies they'll pull out of their greedy @rses, next year, or the year after -- 1TB is a damned sight less than before, remember.
MehGerbil wrote: By the time you put a backup scheme in place (1TB per license with Office 365)
Y'know, I know you think it's a good idea for MS to have complete control of your files, your life, your future, and how much advertising cr@p is shoved down your throat, but there are many who disagree.
And 1TB of *safe* disc space, on your own server, costs precious little -- and, again, is a one-time cost.
Perhaps you'll regret your decision in the future, but I'm pretty sure that I won't regret mine.
I have the best version of the tools, and no "nice surprises" can be sprung on me. Stress is the biggest killer, and my way alleviates stress, because I don't have to worry about what stupid and/or greedy decisions they'll make.
MehGerbil wrote: 13 year old software that is no longer supported and doesn't get updated
Office 2003 works. It doesn't need fixing, ta very much, so I don't need it to be updated to an inferior version that they've "fixed".
MehGerbil wrote: The rest of your post is FUD
Bollocks. Any opinion that doesn't conform with yours is grist for flaming, eh?
MehGerbil wrote: There has been no risk/ransom uncommon to any Office product
Can we spell "Yet", children? Can you honestly say, with absolute certainty, that you know that no Damoclean license condition will fall on your head, in the future?
Wait until they go in a direction that you don't like, and you choose to disavail yourself of their services. Have you read and understood every word of their terms and conditions? (Pay particular attention to the part where they say that you agree to let them change the terms and conditions without notice or your approval).
A word of advice, while you're using this wonderful, God-given service:
If a file is important to you, or worth money, keep it in your own storage, and never edit it with anything that takes a copy to a remote server.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: And getting less and less every year, whilst yours will get higher and higher. And I never have to worry about what kind of ridiculous licensing policies they'll pull out of their greedy @rses, next year, or the year after -- 1TB is a damned sight less than before, remember.
1TB per license - I get 5 licenses for the $99.
That is value above and beyond Office 2003 which doesn't offer online storage.
Mark_Wallace wrote: And 1TB of *safe* disc space, on your own server, costs precious little -- and, again, is a one-time cost.
You didn't include this in your total costs.
A server in your home isn't a one time cost - let's throw in the operating system, hardware, electricity, and maintenance and you'll find your approach is actually costing quite a bit more than mine.
That is okay, to each his own, the point is that your approach doesn't cost less by any means.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Y'know, I know you think it's a good idea for MS to have complete control of your files, your life, your future, and how much advertising cr@p is shoved down your throat, but there are many who disagree.
I don't know what you mean by this as my applications are ad free.
The 'complete control' comment is odd - if you cannot illustrate this happening then I'm going to wave it away as FUD.
If I did have documents that required that level of protection I wouldn't have them on any machine connected to the internet.
Mark_Wallace wrote: And 1TB of *safe* disc space, on your own server, costs precious little -- and, again, is a one-time cost.
It is a one time cost if the server never fails or the OS never is upgraded or you never spend time on maintaining the thing. You didn't include those costs in your original analysis - so the 1TB drive dies tomorrow, what is that going to cost you in time and effort? A server in your home has reoccurring costs which you've left out.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Bollocks. Any opinion that doesn't conform with yours is grist for flaming, eh?
I approached the topic by analyzing cost and your response was "Microsoft is going to steal your documents, make hidden changes to the terms of service, and fondle your 'goodies' when you're asleep."
That is FUD.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Can we spell "Yet", children? Can you honestly say, with absolute certainty, that you know that no Damoclean license condition will fall on your head, in the future?
Can you say with absolute certainty that someone won't hack your server or break into your home and physically steal your server? Are you sure those love poems you wrote to Ricky Martin are absolutely safe? What if a fire destroys your entire home?
You are spreading FUD again.
Mark_Wallace wrote: ocks. Any opinion that doesn't conform with yours is grist for flaming, eh?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: The post is a response to some idiot who referred to all Outlook 365 users as 'sheeple'. The accusation was that people who use the service are just blindly following Microsoft into a virtual slaughterhouse. That is insulting.
I honestly don't care what technology decisions you decide to use. The only reasons you need are 'I like it.' However, if you want to jump into the thread and challenge me on the cost/benefit side of this thing and then back it up with nothing but FUD without actually looking at the real costs then I'll call you out on it.
Again: I didn't log on here and flame people who choose a different approach - I logged on here to flame people who call others out as 'sheeple' for making different choices. I cannot stress this enough: I. DON'T. CARE. WHAT. TECHNOLOGY. DECISIONS. YOU. MAKE.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes. None so blind, and all that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
That's what the subject read in an email I received from AliExpress.
I didn't know they frequented Code Project nor that they knew me that well.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a question for @Brisingr_Aerowing.
I have a FreeNAS box running at home that I have setup with NFS shares. I chose this over SMB as NFS is quicker and I access them from Linux and OpenELEC on a Raspberry Pi.
I have been accessing it with no issues from my Windows 7 boxes for sges and didn't run in to a problem till I put Windows 10 on the Missus's computer.
Seems that since I was running Windows 7 Enterprise from my old TechNet subscription I had access. From what I have read Microsoft are not going to give any Windows 10 version NFS access.
Can anyone point me to a 3rd Party NFS Client they have used or that will work. Google has helped mr find 1 that doesn't seemed to have been maintained for ages and I don't want to rebuild FreeNAS to use SMB.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Networking is so totally inconvenient on Win 10 at home.
My choices are:
see my NAS in File Explorer and treat it like another drive, but not see the rest of the computers on the network
or
not see the NAS except via a web interface, but have access to shares on other systems.
It wouldn't be so bad, if I could switch back and forth without having to reboot.
|
|
|
|
|
I only have to use it for testing, I wouldn't go anywhere near it as a work station, but our msi, that installs drivers, doesnt work on win10.
The problem is the win10 pnp manager, it uses the system driver in preference to our driver. Naturally previous windows OSs work correctly.
Windows 10, piece of crap.
modified 17-Mar-16 3:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me get that right:
a critical piece of software you use don't work with Windows 1.0 to 8.
but because of fracking something it doesn't work in Windows 10 either. Is that right?
Somehow I think Windows 10 is blameless in that....  
|
|
|
|
|
No, previous windows versions all work correctly, it is windows 10 that is junk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
He knows exactly where the junk is. When you install a driver, the OS should use the driver you installed, not something it thinks is a better fit.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are an idiot and know nothing about it.
When the system has a MORCOSOFT SIGNED DRIVER (the one I wrote) on it specifically for that piece of hardware the OS should use that and not the generic one that shipped with the system.
N_tro_P wrote: If you don't agree find a OS that follows those rules. I doubt you will find one though that was made in this century.
Windows 2000, windows XP, windows vista, windows 7 windows 2008 windows 2012 windows 8 windows 8.1
Oh look, you are an idiot who knows nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, my arrogance comes from 20 years of writing windows kernel drivers, its justified. Whereas you know nothing about the matter, as others have pointed out. Time to shut your mouth and open your ears and learn something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote:
So let me get this straight. You really think writting a driver for Windows 3.1 should be the same as for Windows 10?
Windows 3.1 was the only windows OS out 20 years ago was it?
Shows how little you know doesn't it. Ever heard of NT?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
