Re: Always looking the wrong way at the wrong thing.
> I've spent this century avoiding Outlook so ...
... maybe you're not the right person to complain about the alternatives being no use to (fill in your choice of user category here).
2069 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Nov 2011
> “If they can join meeting and send emails/messages to people – what happens if they go rogue?
> It could be sending sensitive data to the wrong people, providing incorrect information,
> or it could be sending strange or offensive messages…how is that to be prevented,
> monitored, and acted upon?”
Same as you do with the PHBs, and for the same reason.
> ...you considering this problem a really big one.
No, the problem is actually a tiny, tiny one: a simple (and clearly unwarranted) decision by a convicted monopolist. It is the consequences of that problem which are "really big". The consequences of the cost to the user in financial terms, in stress, in inconvenience and wasted time, etc.; the consequences of the cost to the wider world in e-waste, in additional resource consumption, etc.
> We're trying to get _away_ from the 1960s designs, not _encourage_ them!
And there is the nub of the problem, hidden in thet statement. It's the 1960s parts that are good; what's been added since, less so.
"Progress may have been alright once, but it went on too long." -- Oscar Wilde, I believe.
> If they are not noticed, they will not work.
True. Adverts are all shit, and when I do notice them, the products advertised are also shit.
And the program they interrupt has been enshitified by the interruption.
Also, isn't that interruption breach of the program-makers copyright?
You're confusing "intended goal" with "stated goal".
The stated goal is "anything you can justify by saying 'think about the children' ". The intended goal will pretty much be "disagreeing with what some entitled government ignoramus believes should be prohibited" - a list which will only grow over time.