?

Log in

No account? Create an account

damn funny - Lograh — LiveJournal

Monday, 30.Jun.2003

8:45 - damn funny

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry



reading some news reports talking about new features in Panther, and one thing stuck out like a sore thumb to me:

"Panther now employs "fast user switching," a longstanding Windows XP feature." (the review was on a pro-M$ site, hence the backhanded compliment)

My only responce to this: Yeah, and a feature Linux has (roughly) had since the early 1990's! I swear, these marketing freaks try to make it look like their product is all great and such by touting their "features" as though they are something impressive, when other products have had those same features for quite some time. While I'll agree the user switching of days past was primitive, I'd wager it's been at it's current level of sophistication for a while now.

Oh goodness, here's another one:

"A new feature called FileVault secures the entire Home folder, encrypting and decrypting files dynamically, in the background."

Now, I'm not entirely sure of the technologies involved (being that I've not taken the time to figure them out), but this sure sounds an *awful* lot like the "encrypted filesystem" option that has been around for a while now.

It just gets to me how the media simply helps to perpetuate the inaccurate vision the public has of the world. It's no wonder people seem so confused by the personal computing landscape! I'd be just as confused if I was being spoon-fed incomplete propoganda and being told it's the honest truth. I don't blame the public for not having the foggiest idea what they should be doing with their computers. I do blame them for not being self-motivated to find out, but that's another rant intirely.

I understand that this is exactly what marketing's job *is*. They are supposed to take a product and puff it up as much as they possibly can. They are supposed to refrain from mentioning anything at all negative and focus only on the positive. But that presents such an unbeliveably skewed view of the product that it's no wonder even the most brain-dead of individuals know not to trust all the adds they see. I'd love it if some company would swear off misleading advertising. But then, I know that such a company would never succede in the marketplace because no matter how much the dimwit may intectually know that all that positive media is misrepresentative, they are still psychologically set to view that product in a positive light when it comes to making a choice at the shopping counter.

And besides, let's be honest here, who's going to be impressed by an add that says "Also, our new product has begun supporting a feature that has been available in our competition's product for many years." The only thing that type of add will encourage is the sales of the competition. It still frustrates me to see a lesser product be more successful simply because of better advertising. Beta vs. VHS all over again.

And just before someone says "yeah and all that linux goodness was based on Minux and Unix tech from even farther back!", I'd like to say that I'm not counting those becasue there were unavailable on my desktop computer at home. This bitchy rant is only concerned with the end-user level of computing.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:sifueireman
Date:9:41 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

Heh heh

(Link)
Yes consumerism seems to be at an all time high.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:9:51 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

yeah and all that linux goodness was based on Minux and Unix tech from even farther back!

(Link)
(a) OS X is, as I understood it, based on BSD, not Linux. Some minor research on Apple's site confirms this.
(b) BSD has been available for the desktop for just as long. (My personal fave distro, FreeBSD, came out first in 1992, albeit pre 1.0)
If we are to compare anything though, comparing version 1.0s of the software: FreeBSD 1.0 in Dec 1993, Linux 1.0 in Mar 1994. That's one distribution of BSD vs. the history of Linux.

Granted, advances in Linux also helped out BSD on the desktop, and vice versa, as it the way of things with open source and OS fanatics. But be mindful that when you talk about OS X, OS X != Linux.

[References:
Mac OS X: http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Timeline of GNU/Linux and Unix: http://www.robotwisdom.com/linux/timeline.html ]
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:10:01 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

Re: yeah and all that linux goodness was based on Minux and Unix tech from even farther back!

(Link)
(a) I never in this post stated that OSX=Linux. I am very well aware of the BSD underpinnings of OSX.

as to the timeline saying that 1994 was the first appearance of Linux, I'm somewhat confused. I distinctly remember playing with Linux on a computer I had back in High School. This memory being confirmed by a high school friend I had saying he also remembers me being into Linux back in high school. Kinda conflicting with the timeline as I graduated in June 1994.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:10:30 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

Re: yeah and all that linux goodness was based on Minux and Unix tech from even farther back!

(Link)
(a) You talked up a storm about Linux, and that combined with your statement that I quoted in the subject line seemed (to me) to display ignorance about OS X/BSD.

(b) That's when (they record) Linux 1.0 came out. If you look up a couple years back, you'll see other information, regaring pre 1.0, newsgroups, etc.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:10:36 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

Re: yeah and all that linux goodness was based on Minux and Unix tech from even farther back!

(Link)
I suppose I was working with a pre 1.0 kernal, but I seem to remember it being part of an actual distribution. Slackwarre, if memory serves (which it usually doesn't). I didn't know the various distros actually existed before the 1.0 kernal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:10:40 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

Re: yeah and all that linux goodness was based on Minux and Unix tech from even farther back!

(Link)
I remember playing with Slackware in 1996/1997, but of course that doesn't mean that's when it came up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:10:49 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)

The power of research!

(Link)
According to:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6000

Slackware was put out in June 1993:
"Slackware, by Patrick Volkerding, becomes the first commercial standalone distribution and quickly becomes popular within the Linux community."

They still list Linux 1.0 in March '94.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:11:12 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)
(Link)
that would work. I guess slackware started with a pre-1.0 kernal. Damn, I didn't know I was using it *that* early on in it's development. No wonder it was a total bitch to do stuff back then. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:smogwax
Date:11:45 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah M$ cracks me up if they are not implementing something that already exists in another product then they are creating new features for an office app that no one knew they needed and thrying to convince them that they now need this new feature... heh heh. Of course I work for a large processor company in folsom (trying not to name names, I think it is obvious to thsoe who live around here) and we work with all the OS's, yes all of them. Doesn't mean theya ;ll have products on the market but our chipsets have configurations for eveything and it is interesting to see the differences, of course the practical stuff never makes it into marketing campaigns but hey its marketing...KILL YOUR TV !!! oh wait don't I need my job a couple more days.. hmm, entering quandry, how do I bash consumerism and still keep my job? anyone know of a decent bookstore that is hiring? heh heh.. yeah so I agree with you, but then I work for a large corporation so I have to support the purchasing of our products, but then I do not like marketing concepts at all, and I just want to rebel against the concept of luring money out of peoples pockets with statements that are not really all that factual.. *sigh*
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:elentar
Date:22:46 30.Jun.2003 (UTC)
(Link)
Another announcement was the G5 workstation, running at 64-bit. Nice in and of itself, even if it'll take a little while for that theoretical increase in performance to actually reach us low-end users (c'mon, who can afford 4 gigs of ram, let alone 8?)

I read an article yesterday in which Intel proclaimed far and wide that their Itanium 64-bit processor would be the core of some new servers from HP, Dell and maybe a few others. Great for them! And on those new machines you can run...er... well, they didn't exactly say what. But they did say that no version of Windows would be supported.

The whole marketing thing _IS_ stupid, but I will admit to being pleased that a 64-bit processor is finally being used for something. Word is that it uses less than half the power that the G4 does, so I'm hoping that a new lineup of heat-free Powerbooks are on the way.

-Elentar
(Reply) (Thread)