Groups > alt.privacy.anon-server > #65006 > unrolled thread

Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions

Started by	Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com>
First post	2018-05-31 13:26 -0500
Last post	2018-06-03 00:42 -0400
Articles	20 on this page of 125 — 23 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.privacy.anon-server

  Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com> - 2018-05-31 13:26 -0500
    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-05-31 17:24 -0700
      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com> - 2018-06-01 07:12 -0500
    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-01 05:53 +0200
      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 08:41 -0400
        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 08:23 -0500
          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ooze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 10:12 -0400
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:05 -0700
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-01 08:16 -0700
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-01 16:59 -0500
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 15:06 -0700
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-01 19:02 -0500
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0500
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 11:36 -0400
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:01 -0700
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:14 -0500
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 17:15 -0400
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-01 23:44 +0100
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 18:57 -0400
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:03 -0700
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 19:24 -0400
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:27 -0700
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0500
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:20 +0000
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:25 -0700
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 16:31 -0400
                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:35 -0700
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 16:43 -0400
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:59 +0000
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0400
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 15:12 +0000
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:19 -0700
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:23 -0400
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 19:00 +0000
                                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:17 -0700
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:50 +0000
                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 17:02 -0400
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:59 +0000
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0400
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:20 -0500
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 11:11 -0400
                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 10:38 -0500
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 13:03 -0400
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-06-08 12:20 -0500
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 12:14 -0700
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Knarf Gewtools <that@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-08 20:12 +0000
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 17:54 -0400
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:00 -0700
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com> - 2018-06-01 11:36 -0500
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 11:40 -0500
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 17:03 -0400
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:23 +0000
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 18:02 +0000
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:14 -0400
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-06-02 00:19 +0200
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-01 22:21 +0000
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-06-02 00:25 +0200
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 09:15 -0400
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:36 +0000
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 15:39 -0700
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-01 22:44 +0000
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 18:57 -0400
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:01 -0700
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 22:03 -0400
                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:12 -0400
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:32 -0700
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:18 +0000
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 15:26 -0700
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 17:14 -0400
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:21 -0700
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 01:19 +0100
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 01:18 +0000
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:19 -0700
                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 03:14 +0000
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:23 -0700
                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 03:39 +0000
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:55 -0700
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:01 -0400
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:12 -0700
                                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:25 -0400
                                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:36 -0700
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 04:40 +0000
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:43 -0700
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
                                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:04 +0100
                                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 10:18 -0700
                                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 18:28 +0100
                                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:54 -0700
                                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 11:01 -0700
                                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 11:21 -0700
                                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-03 03:23 +0000
                                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 20:45 +0100
                                      Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 13:12 -0700
                                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 21:19 +0100
                                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
                                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-03 03:29 +0000
                                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-03 18:52 +0100
                                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-03 21:20 +0000
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-12 23:22 -0700
                                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-06-14 00:29 +0200
                            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:01 -0400
                              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:15 -0700
                          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:40 +0000
                        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0500
                    Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:05 +0100
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 01:18 +0100
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 01:15 +0000
                  Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:09 +0100
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com> - 2018-06-01 08:40 -0500
          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-01 23:43 +0100
          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-01 17:57 -0700
        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 11:21 -0400
          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 11:38 -0400
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 10:42 -0500
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:02 -0700
          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 10:40 -0500
        Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-01 17:54 -0700
          Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 09:28 -0400
            Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 09:55 -0400
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:41 -0700
              Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 22:38 -0400
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0700
                Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 00:42 -0400

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →

#65092

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2018-06-02 00:25 -0400
Message-ID	<020620180025111860%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#65090

In article <fnejpbFs8l7U1@mid.individual.net>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> I can see some things which might be issues -- such as not being able to
> >> install other program -- but overall I think this would be great for a
> >> lot of the people I have worked with.
> > 
> > get them a chromebook or an ipad.
> > 
> Have suggested both to people (though I do not know Chrome Books well 
> and let them know that).
> 
> I know the ChromeBook reviews well, but most of the folks I know who 
> have used them do not like them. Not sure why... I have not worked with 
> them enough to really say.

probably because they aren't familiar with them.

for common tasks (email, word processing, web browsing, etc.), they're
a very good choice. some can even run android apps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65093

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date	2018-06-01 21:36 -0700
Message-ID	<fnel6fFsfm5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65092

On 6/1/18 9:25 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <fnejpbFs8l7U1@mid.individual.net>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>
>>>> I can see some things which might be issues -- such as not being able to
>>>> install other program -- but overall I think this would be great for a
>>>> lot of the people I have worked with.
>>>
>>> get them a chromebook or an ipad.
>>>
>> Have suggested both to people (though I do not know Chrome Books well
>> and let them know that).
>>
>> I know the ChromeBook reviews well, but most of the folks I know who
>> have used them do not like them. Not sure why... I have not worked with
>> them enough to really say.
> 
> probably because they aren't familiar with them.

Could be. I know my kids use them at a friend's house and hate them, but 
they are used to Macs (and somewhat Windows). They have very little 
exposure to Linux other than our "TV" system.

> for common tasks (email, word processing, web browsing, etc.), they're
> a very good choice. some can even run android apps.
> 
I have heard that is coming...

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65094

From	Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>
Date	2018-06-02 04:40 +0000
Message-ID	<20180602002117@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#65087

On 2018-06-02, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> I can see some things which might be issues -- such as not being able to 
> install other program -- but overall I think this would be great for a 
> lot of the people I have worked with.

Yes, the machine is limited, that's one of the ways they keep it simple
and reliable.  It's aimed at people who have no concept of what installing
a program even means. Also, you can hook up any kind of printer you want
as long as it's an HP. :) (The machine comes pre-loaded with HP's HLIP
software for Linux.)

Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
Buck Rogers, loves the thing.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65095

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date	2018-06-01 21:43 -0700
Message-ID	<fnelj0FshuqU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65094

On 6/1/18 9:40 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2018-06-02, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> I can see some things which might be issues -- such as not being able to
>> install other program -- but overall I think this would be great for a
>> lot of the people I have worked with.
> 
> Yes, the machine is limited, that's one of the ways they keep it simple
> and reliable.  It's aimed at people who have no concept of what installing
> a program even means. Also, you can hook up any kind of printer you want
> as long as it's an HP. :) (The machine comes pre-loaded with HP's HLIP
> software for Linux.)

I get that -- though I fear they may have gone too far for many. Really 
want to play with one now though.

> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.

That is the target market I am sure.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65097

From	Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
Date	2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Message-ID	<fneqqiFteu0U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65094

Roger Blake wrote:
> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.

Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen 
(2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support 
situation.  Free lifetime basic support and VIP support at $10/mo, which 
basic support is toll free phone, email, and claims to be US based (that 
may be the VIP v.)  as opposed to a language barrier phone center 
somewhere in the world.

The VIP support includes extras and remote access support.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65098

From	"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk>
Date	2018-06-02 14:04 +0100
Message-ID	<op.zjzfxtdlu3fn8d@red.lan>
In reply to	#65097

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 07:12:33 +0100, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

> Roger Blake wrote:
>> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
>> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
>> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
>> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
>> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
>> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.
>
> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen
> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
> situation.  Free lifetime basic support and VIP support at $10/mo, which
> basic support is toll free phone, email, and claims to be US based (that
> may be the VIP v.)  as opposed to a language barrier phone center
> somewhere in the world.
>
> The VIP support includes extras and remote access support.

I dunno about the US, but in the UK if I get an Indian I just say "I'd like to speak to an English person please" and they put me through to one.

-- 
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic -- Arthur C Clarke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65104

From	Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
Date	2018-06-02 10:18 -0700
Message-ID	<fng1rmF697cU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65098

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Roger Blake wrote:
>>> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
>>> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
>>> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
>>> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
>>> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
>>> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.
>>
>> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen
>> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
>> situation.  Free lifetime basic support and VIP support at $10/mo, which
>> basic support is toll free phone, email, and claims to be US based (that
>> may be the VIP v.)  as opposed to a language barrier phone center
>> somewhere in the world.
>>
>> The VIP support includes extras and remote access support.
> 
> I dunno about the US, but in the UK if I get an Indian I just say "I'd 
> like to speak to an English person please" and they put me through to one.
> 

The business of being able to provide sufficient quality telephone 
support is typically a very costly and difficult undertaking.  The 
typical scenario is that it is farmed out to call centers somewhere the 
support hourly wage is more affordable, such as India or the Philippines.

This target marketed audience of seniors, particularly those who would 
choose to buy such a WOW computer, would seem to me to be a particularly 
difficult one. "I don't know anything about computers and my faculties 
are somewhat impaired as I can't see very well (or hear very well, or 
remember very well, or handle a mouse very well)."

It is interesting that the WOW people decided to build their interface 
on the Tiny Core Linux base and other open source ware.  It seems that 
the hardware is very minimal except for what is spent on that 22" 
touchscreen, so the dollar distribution would be hardware-wise 
principally that monitor touchscreen and then the tech support.

I'm sure they would 'immediately' upgrade the users who needed more 
support to the $10/mo VIP (1st 30 d. free VIP), but that is still pretty 
cheap price.  Being able to give remote support helps a lot, but that 
requires functional connectivity and hardware performance.  If one of 
those weren't operating properly, I think the customer would need some 
kind of outside support.

The reviews on Amazon were more negative than positive.  There were 
worthwhile comments there from IT people who made suggestions about 
alternate ways to provide much better hardware, but I didn't find those 
suggestions satisfactory about how to achieve a 'foolproof' interface. 
There's the nut in this venture.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65105

From	"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk>
Date	2018-06-02 18:28 +0100
Message-ID	<op.zjzr46afu3fn8d@red.lan>
In reply to	#65104

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:18:45 +0100, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

> Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Roger Blake wrote:
>>>> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
>>>> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
>>>> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
>>>> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
>>>> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
>>>> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.
>>>
>>> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen
>>> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
>>> situation.  Free lifetime basic support and VIP support at $10/mo, which
>>> basic support is toll free phone, email, and claims to be US based (that
>>> may be the VIP v.)  as opposed to a language barrier phone center
>>> somewhere in the world.
>>>
>>> The VIP support includes extras and remote access support.
>>
>> I dunno about the US, but in the UK if I get an Indian I just say "I'd
>> like to speak to an English person please" and they put me through to one.
>
> The business of being able to provide sufficient quality telephone
> support is typically a very costly and difficult undertaking.  The
> typical scenario is that it is farmed out to call centers somewhere the
> support hourly wage is more affordable, such as India or the Philippines.

Which is why minimum wage is a stupid idea, it just means other countries get all our work.

> This target marketed audience of seniors, particularly those who would
> choose to buy such a WOW computer, would seem to me to be a particularly
> difficult one. "I don't know anything about computers and my faculties
> are somewhat impaired as I can't see very well (or hear very well, or
> remember very well, or handle a mouse very well)."
>
> It is interesting that the WOW people decided to build their interface
> on the Tiny Core Linux base and other open source ware.  It seems that
> the hardware is very minimal except for what is spent on that 22"
> touchscreen, so the dollar distribution would be hardware-wise
> principally that monitor touchscreen and then the tech support.
>
> I'm sure they would 'immediately' upgrade the users who needed more
> support to the $10/mo VIP (1st 30 d. free VIP), but that is still pretty
> cheap price.  Being able to give remote support helps a lot, but that
> requires functional connectivity and hardware performance.  If one of
> those weren't operating properly, I think the customer would need some
> kind of outside support.

I was once asked to fax a copy of a receipt to a company when the fax/modem I bought from them wasn't working.  He realised his mistake when I burst out laughing.

> The reviews on Amazon were more negative than positive.

You managed to find Amazon's review system?  I hate Amazon, it's about 10 times harder to use than Ebay.  First annoying thing, the postage ain't shown in the search results.  So I can't see who's the cheapest.  Amazon, you lose.

> There were
> worthwhile comments there from IT people who made suggestions about
> alternate ways to provide much better hardware, but I didn't find those
> suggestions satisfactory about how to achieve a 'foolproof' interface.
> There's the nut in this venture.

-- 
Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65107

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date	2018-06-02 10:54 -0700
Message-ID	<fng3u9F6me4U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65105

On 6/2/18 10:28 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:18:45 +0100, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> Roger Blake wrote:
>>>>> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
>>>>> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
>>>>> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
>>>>> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
>>>>> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
>>>>> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.
>>>>
>>>> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" 
>>>> touchscreen
>>>> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
>>>> situation.  Free lifetime basic support and VIP support at $10/mo, 
>>>> which
>>>> basic support is toll free phone, email, and claims to be US based 
>>>> (that
>>>> may be the VIP v.)  as opposed to a language barrier phone center
>>>> somewhere in the world.
>>>>
>>>> The VIP support includes extras and remote access support.
>>>
>>> I dunno about the US, but in the UK if I get an Indian I just say "I'd
>>> like to speak to an English person please" and they put me through to 
>>> one.
>>
>> The business of being able to provide sufficient quality telephone
>> support is typically a very costly and difficult undertaking.  The
>> typical scenario is that it is farmed out to call centers somewhere the
>> support hourly wage is more affordable, such as India or the Philippines.
> 
> Which is why minimum wage is a stupid idea, it just means other 
> countries get all our work.

Do you have other ideas to reduce socializing the cost of labor? Right 
now, for example, many if not most of Walmart and McDonald's workers get 
part of their income from the government -- socializing the cost of 
labor for these businesses.

The general reply to this is to respond with microeconomics thinking: 
these people should get other work if they want more money, but this 
ignores the reality that these are the two largest employers in the 
country. Looking at the macroeconomic situation, these corporations and 
many others get socialized support for their labor costs.

...

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65108

From	Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
Date	2018-06-02 11:01 -0700
Message-ID	<fng4bgF6p31U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65097

Mike Easter wrote:
> Roger Blake wrote:
>> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
>> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
>> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
>> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
>> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
>> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.
> 
> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen 
> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support 
> situation.  

A competing marketer is Telikin, which has more screen size options on 
weak cpu/ram and a laptop which benefits from having 4G ram and is also 
'less overpriced' at $800 for 15.6 touchscreen and spinning 500G hdd 
instead of small SSD.

It seems that Telikin has been around in some way since 2010 Nov 
according wp article.

I wonder exactly who is in charge of developing the interface, since it 
seems to be being used by more than one outfit.  I believe Venture 3's 
Fred Allegrezza has been into this idea longer than WOW.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65109

From	Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
Date	2018-06-02 11:21 -0700
Message-ID	<fng5hpF6vufU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65108

Mike Easter wrote:
> I wonder exactly who is in charge of developing the interface, since it 
> seems to be being used by more than one outfit.  I believe Venture 3's 
> Fred Allegrezza has been into this idea longer than WOW.

Here's Fred commenting in the Ub forum in 2012 Oct;

Hey Guys,

Telikin was developed on the TinyCore Linux. Our primary goal of using 
Linux was to avoid viruses, spyware, and malware. We also chose TinyCore 
to have an option of an embedded version in the future. I am not a Linux 
expert. Tim, Megan, Adam, Cliff and Carl work on the OS and back office 
systems. We also have an application team developing the apps on Java.

We also selected TinyCore to have a platform that was easy for us to 
manage updates for the users. Our background was in cable where settop 
boxes have a lot of software but it is managed for the end users.

We agree that there are many tech savvy seniors. We built the computer 
for those that are not comfortable with computers. About 50% of our 
users have never used a copmputer before. We were not targeting tech 
savvy seniors. They have Windows and Mac as options.

We decided to include a number of applications so the end users would 
not need to load and manage application. In addition we know the apps 
and if when a customer calls in we know what they are using. I think of 
this more as an application system.

A big part of the business is support. We built in a remote management 
service for all computers so we can remotly show our users how to use 
applications.

The specs are on the web site.

As a value proposition telikin serves a niche market, included software 
applications and great support. We undertand it is not for everyone, but 
there are a number of happy users.

Hope this helps.
Fred Allegrezza CEO Telikin.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65124

From	Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>
Date	2018-06-03 03:23 +0000
Message-ID	<20180602231655@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#65109

On 2018-06-02, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:
> Here's Fred commenting in the Ub forum in 2012 Oct;
>
> ...

Interesting. It's a niche segment of the market I'm really not familiar
with since in general I don't work on home computers. (Though of course
I do get roped into doing so for people I know.) If it weren't for my
neighbor asking me to hook up a printer for him I would probably not
even know about those systems.

I do understand that a big chunk of the high price is for support. I found
the Wow computer support pretty good when I called to find out what kind
of printer could be used. I got through to a real person quickly whose
primary Language was English.  As soon as he realized that I grokked Linux
he told me "any printer that works with HPLIP version x.x (whatever it
was)."

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65110

From	"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk>
Date	2018-06-02 20:45 +0100
Message-ID	<op.zjzyhfzcu3fn8d@red.lan>
In reply to	#65108

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:01:19 +0100, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Roger Blake wrote:
>>> Cost is ridiculous when compared to similar-spec commodity hardware,
>>> but as I said what you're paying for is the ease of use for people who
>>> really have no knowledge of computers at all. I find it frustrating
>>> to deal with since it is so locked down. However my elderly neighbor,
>>> who is a WWII veteran to whom a computer seems like something out of
>>> Buck Rogers, loves the thing.
>>
>> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen
>> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
>> situation.
>
>
> A competing marketer is Telikin, which has more screen size options on
> weak cpu/ram and a laptop which benefits from having 4G ram and is also
> 'less overpriced' at $800 for 15.6 touchscreen and spinning 500G hdd
> instead of small SSD.
>
> It seems that Telikin has been around in some way since 2010 Nov
> according wp article.
>
> I wonder exactly who is in charge of developing the interface, since it
> seems to be being used by more than one outfit.  I believe Venture 3's
> Fred Allegrezza has been into this idea longer than WOW.

"Benefits from 4G RAM"?  WTF?  I would never consider building a computer with under 16GB RAM. Current max is 64GB.

-- 
Said the Duchess of Windsor at tea,
"Young man, do you fart when you pee?"
I replied with some wit
"Do you belch when you shit?"
I think that was one up to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65111

From	Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
Date	2018-06-02 13:12 -0700
Message-ID	<fngc1dF87p7U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65110

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>
>>> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen
>>> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
>>> situation.

Notice that the WOW and most of the Telikins have 2G ram.

>> A competing marketer is Telikin, which has more screen size options on
>> weak cpu/ram and a laptop which benefits from having 4G ram and is also
>> 'less overpriced' at $800 for 15.6 touchscreen and spinning 500G hdd
>> instead of small SSD.
> 
> "Benefits from 4G RAM"?  WTF?  I would never consider building a 
> computer with under 16GB RAM. Current max is 64GB.
> 
Compared to 2G, 4G is twice as much and a lot more 'elbow room' for a 
low resource system.

We are talking about machines running Tiny Core Linux, which starts off 
with a 16 meg OS.  If one doesn't waste a lot of ram on the interface, 
2G is adequate and 4G is 'roomy' :-)

Typically Core Linux interfaces with an efficient window manager such as 
Fast Light wm, but it offers others.

16 G in a rig like this would be ridiculous.  It would be better to 
spend some money on a faster CPU.  I have no idea how they are handling 
the graphics.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65112

From	"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk>
Date	2018-06-02 21:19 +0100
Message-ID	<op.zjzz3gueu3fn8d@red.lan>
In reply to	#65111

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:12:28 +0100, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

> Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another feature of the WOW which is an all-in-one design 22" touchscreen
>>>> (2G ram, 32 G SSD, wireless kb/mouse) is their 'built-in' support
>>>> situation.
>
> Notice that the WOW and most of the Telikins have 2G ram.
>
>>> A competing marketer is Telikin, which has more screen size options on
>>> weak cpu/ram and a laptop which benefits from having 4G ram and is also
>>> 'less overpriced' at $800 for 15.6 touchscreen and spinning 500G hdd
>>> instead of small SSD.
>>
>> "Benefits from 4G RAM"?  WTF?  I would never consider building a
>> computer with under 16GB RAM. Current max is 64GB.
>>
> Compared to 2G, 4G is twice as much and a lot more 'elbow room' for a
> low resource system.
>
> We are talking about machines running Tiny Core Linux, which starts off
> with a 16 meg OS.  If one doesn't waste a lot of ram on the interface,
> 2G is adequate and 4G is 'roomy' :-)
>
> Typically Core Linux interfaces with an efficient window manager such as
> Fast Light wm, but it offers others.
>
> 16 G in a rig like this would be ridiculous.  It would be better to
> spend some money on a faster CPU.  I have no idea how they are handling
> the graphics.

So are these things capable of more than what my scientific calculator can do?  Because they don't sound like it.  My neighbour's smartphone is probably more powerful.

-- 
Police cordoned off Liverpool City Centre this morning when a suspicious object was discovered in a car.
It later turned out to be a tax disc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65115

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date	2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Message-ID	<fngctoF8a4tU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#65112

On 6/2/18 1:19 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>> Compared to 2G, 4G is twice as much and a lot more 'elbow room' for a
>> low resource system.
>>
>> We are talking about machines running Tiny Core Linux, which starts off
>> with a 16 meg OS.  If one doesn't waste a lot of ram on the interface,
>> 2G is adequate and 4G is 'roomy' :-)
>>
>> Typically Core Linux interfaces with an efficient window manager such as
>> Fast Light wm, but it offers others.
>>
>> 16 G in a rig like this would be ridiculous.  It would be better to
>> spend some money on a faster CPU.  I have no idea how they are handling
>> the graphics.
> 
> So are these things capable of more than what my scientific calculator 
> can do?  Because they don't sound like it.  My neighbour's smartphone is 
> probably more powerful.

For their user base the may very well be extremely powerful machines, 
allowing them to surf the web, play games, edit images, and MUCH more in 
a way few other machines can.

The "power" of a system is impacted by its tech specs but there is a LOT 
more to it than that. The power is in what the user can do.

These systems, of course, are not designed for those of us who know what 
Usenet is, no less use it. :)

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65125

From	Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>
Date	2018-06-03 03:29 +0000
Message-ID	<20180602232348@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#65111

On 2018-06-02, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:
> 16 G in a rig like this would be ridiculous.  It would be better to 
> spend some money on a faster CPU.  I have no idea how they are handling 
> the graphics.

Since it's Celeron-based, probably low-end Intel graphics. (Most Intel
graphics are well supported in Linux.)

Overall performance seemed to be OK for its intended purpose. For that
matter I have a couple of old Celeron-based netbooks with 2GB memory
and those run OK for light use with Lubuntu. They probably would run even
better with something really lightweight like Tiny Core.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65133

From	"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk>
Date	2018-06-03 18:52 +0100
Message-ID	<op.zj1nydcuu3fn8d@red.lan>
In reply to	#65125

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 04:29:09 +0100, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-06-02, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:
>> 16 G in a rig like this would be ridiculous.  It would be better to
>> spend some money on a faster CPU.  I have no idea how they are handling
>> the graphics.
>
> Since it's Celeron-based, probably low-end Intel graphics. (Most Intel
> graphics are well supported in Linux.)
>
> Overall performance seemed to be OK for its intended purpose. For that
> matter I have a couple of old Celeron-based netbooks with 2GB memory
> and those run OK for light use with Lubuntu. They probably would run even
> better with something really lightweight like Tiny Core.

Intel graphics is pretty horrid, but it seems to be catching up with discrete graphics cards which have pretty much stayed still for the last few years.  I have a 4 year old Radeon R9 290.  It cost me £290 back then.  If I paid £330 now I'd get a Radeon RX580, which is only 19% faster for single precision and 40% SLOWER for double precision.  They're going backwards!  It does use less electricity, so saves you a small amount of money on that and also needs less cooling so is quieter, but I'd expect some more speed for 4 years development work.

-- 
Kakistocracy - Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kakistocracy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65138

From	Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>
Date	2018-06-03 21:20 +0000
Message-ID	<20180603171236@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#65133

On 2018-06-03, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> wrote:
> Intel graphics is pretty horrid, but it seems to be catching up with
> discrete graphics cards which have pretty much stayed still for the last
> few years.

Intel graphics is awful for gaming, especially on older and lower-end chips.
However it is perfectly fine for most general internet activities such as
reading emails, browsing web sites, watching facetube videos, etc. The
target market for the Wow and similar computers is probably not much
interested in games beyond Solitaire and Mahjong.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65233

From	tom <tom@0.0.0.0>
Date	2018-06-12 23:22 -0700
Message-ID	<20180612232245.006219e2@viridi>
In reply to	#65087

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 20:55:35 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 6/1/18 8:39 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> > On 2018-06-02, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:  
> >> Would love to see it.  
> > 
> > A web search on "senior computer" picked it up:
> > 
> >    https://www.mywowcomputer.com/
> > 
> > The thing is very overpriced for the hardware you get, but it is
> > exceptionally simple to use. You're basically paying for the user
> > interface.  Kind of what like Apple does with OS-X, another company
> > that managed to tame Unix and make it palatable to the average
> > person, but you need to buy overpriced hardware to run it. (Aside
> > from hacked-up versions that may run on commodity hardware.)
> >   
> Would love to see that in action. I spent some time setting up
> newbies and seniors with Ubuntu (and later Mint) and it did not go as
> well as I had hoped.
> 
> Did a quick search for it and found a review:
> 
> <https://youtu.be/NWz-QuAhaII>
> 
> I can see some things which might be issues -- such as not being able
> to install other program -- but overall I think this would be great
> for a lot of the people I have worked with.
> 
> 

I wonder how hard it would be to write a simple window manager where
all it does is have big ass icons on the desktop

INTERNET
EMAIL
FACEBOOK
NETFLIX
PORN

and for windows management simply a windowbar with a big red X. Might
even be possible to configure FVWM for that. Then of course harden the
os, noexec,nosuid on home partition, kernel and compiler hardening, all
that jazz. Something a chip could figure out. That's the level of
effort 90% of the public put into their computing. This way we wouldn't
have Microsoft and Apple mainstreaming their stupud fucking walled
gardens, protocols and standards on everyone.

-- 
 ______________________________________ 
/ The older a man gets, the farther he \
\ had to walk to school as a boy.      /
 -------------------------------------- 
\
 \
   /\   /\   
  //\\_//\\     ____
  \_     _/    /   /
   / * * \    /^^^]
   \_\O/_/    [   ]
    /   \_    [   /
    \     \_  /  /
     [ [ /  \/ _/
    _[ [ \  /_/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →

csiph-web

Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions

Contents

#65092

#65093

#65094

#65095

#65097

#65098

#65104

#65105

#65107

#65108

#65109

#65124

#65110

#65111

#65112

#65115

#65125

#65133

#65138

#65233