So Ubuntu’s not worth considering because it can’t handle that many Windows apps…

You mean, those Windows apps you have to buy and that will only run with some versions of Windows and that don’t run all that well anyway?

Well, turn it around. How many of those gloriously powerful and free apps that run in any version of Ubuntu can Windows run? Oh, I see none. Fair enough.

Wine isn’t very good, I admit, but the virtual machine from VMWare would solve your problem, I think you’ll find. But anyway, I would recommend you take the time to try Ubuntu and discover why its so good. Rather than trying to get old Windows apps to run, go find Ubuntu apps that run better – because you will!

Bear in mind, trading systems invariably run in Linux, not Windows. that should tell you something…

But ultimately Ubuntu is all about choice, if you don’t like to have choice, fair enough, who am I to argue with that?

Keep the windows I’d say and only treat Ubuntu as a toy that you can play with from time to time.

http://itworldcom.com/asus-ee-transformer-prime

http://itworldcom.com/what-asus-should-do

warm regards,

Mundane transactions – moving money around, checking balances, paying bills, all these are great done online or mobile. But complex high value decisions or account issues demand a conversation, face to face with someone you know you can trust, not by clicking a mouse.

I take your point about the number of times you visit a branch, but might that be more that the branch isn’t providing the kind of environment you would want to visit?

If branches do sell high value products better than onlne, then the challenge must surely be to make them more effective, not kill them off as Brett suggests.

Banks should think more about customer marketing and use their branches better!

first direct are way ahead in customer service terms as they have a call centre you can easily contact and crucially the staff are well trained. Maybe the future is online and easy to contact? The problem is, how does this scale without being too expensive?

My referencing Ghandi and MLK was purely to give examples of those who changed things from outside, not within the organisations they sought to change.

This was in response to your assertion that I should go join a bank to change it any external social comment was worthless. Presumably you value bank customer comment the same way.

This article was about the error of dismissing social comment – particularly when the person dismissing it uses the same channel to preach their own truth.

A worm? I said some evolve from the chrysalis to become butterflies, some – like you become apologists and draw back. It was a metaphor.

Hot air – that was a joke. It was in response to a comment about someone choosing to wear braces to your meeting.

I said there was no need, you’d blow enough smoke up their backsides to keep their trousers up. I added a smiley, which you dismissed.

You’ve said on many occasions my view is worthless. that’s fair enough. A view’s value is entirely in the mind of those who hear it.

At least I can talk openly about how I truly feel. Quite liberating in a way. If your colleagues think that’s funny, I’ve no issues with that.

My articles may seem to you as rants, but I rarely rage. What’s the point – change is a journey down a slope, not an explosion. It just needs the right push.

But I’ve seem lots of changes and the one real truth – as Socrates once said – is that the more I learn, the less I really know to be true.

I’m afraid it seems the more you say to be true shows how little you’re actually learning. The classic Sophist doctrine.

Here’s an interesting exercise. Search on my name in your blog and notice how little my earlier views differed from what is your position now – particularly about what I felt innovation and strategy are about.

And don’t be flattered by audience size – note the fall off in your responses now you’re not regarded as a potential contact in banking or the Public Sector.

Anyway, Klout doesn’t put us too far apart, but don’t take much notice of that, I don’t. I don’t travel or speak at conferences.

For me, as I said, I’m happy to talk to whoever will listen. I value quality over quantity. And integrity over spin.

But then, I would say that!

it is the first time I have ever criticised you online.

Actually, I usually don’t respond to your various tirades in public because all it does is enlarge your rather limited audience. I don’t know why I bothered last Friday either.

But what I do know, is that whenever I try to respond to anything you say, you come up with ridiculous posts like these. You usually write them without mentioning my name, though I’m not sure why?

So far, over the years, you have described me as a butterfly that turned back into a worm.

You’ve suggested I’m a sophist who doesn’t listen to anyone.

You’ve suggested that I’ve achieved nothing in my career of note, that I’m the master of “failed incremental innovation programmes”.

You’ve said online “I’m “full of hot air”.

You continue to rant and rage as if we’ve met and I’ve done something really terrible to you or your career.

Well, anyway, good luck to you. Though your antics have caused me – and lots of others to chuckle over the years – I think it is enough.

I shall not respond to you again.