Slashdot Mirror
Whose Desktop Would You Most Like To See?
An anonymous reader writes "Have you ever been curious about what someone else's computing environment looks like? Would you like to see what tools and products someone like Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, George Bush, or Steve Jobs uses on a daily basis? What percentage of time is spent browsing the web, working in spreadsheets, programming, debugging, designing, or writing documents? How many monitors or devices do they have attached to their PC? What kind of security or anonymizers do they have in place?" For good or ill, open source developers' desktops at least are often visible in screenshots of their pet projects.
A) Why isn't this a poll?
B) IMPORTANT people don't have desktops, sometimes semi-important people have consoles.
C) How about CmdrTaco?
==========
Intelligence should not be rewarded; ignorance should be punished
==========
RedHat and SuSE. You'd know if you'd read his book.
I seriously doubt that George Bush -has- a desktop. What is he going to do with it? Write a reply to the Secretary of State via eMail? Look at the budget on Excel? Put together the state of the union with PowerPOint?
Come on, people in powerful places don't waste their time with this kind of crap. They have lots of people doing "stuff" for them.
The exception is likely those in the computer industry - like Gates and Jobs. Those folks have a technical background, and want to experience their own industry (obviously, having a computer on your desktop can be a help if you're a leader in the world of technology).
CEOs and other people of power are not like you and me. They have people like you and me. Or, more likely, they have people that have people like you and me. Well, twice more removed.
Whenever I use one of my Windows PCs. He must be satisfied with it, otherwise he would see that it be improved. But he doesn't. You get what he wants.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
All kidding aside, why would George Bush need a personal computer? What's he going to do, write up the new federal budget in Excel? Make a PowerPoint about why we should go to Mars? Type up the State of the Union address in Word? Schedule cabinet meetings in Outlook? Read emails sent to whitehouse.gov?
I'm sure the closest he comes to working with a computer is reading a few select emails that someone printed out for him.
Gates uses MacOS, Torvalds uses Windows, and Jobs uses Linux. They're a bunch of swingaas babyyy!
Actually, I would make sense for them to have an almost-primary computer be the competing OS. This way they'd have to get used to it and see the good points as well as the bad.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
LOL I guess you're not a Windows user to make that kind of broad assumption. A lot of people customize thier desktops with backgrounds, layouts, dual monitor layouts, winamp/trillian/etc. set just so, what shortcut icons are on the desktop and what in the toolbar, etc.
To assume a Windows desktop isn't/can't be customized is naive and biased.
Pardon me for not trying to be funny, but George W. Bush doesn't use a computer unless he absolutely has to. He's said this before. He also doesn't watch television unless it's sports, he doesn't like to use the telephone, he doesn't use cell-phones, and so on.
All of this should be no surprise for someone who doesn't even read the news himself, and has his advisors act as a "news filter" for him so he only hears and learns about what he wants to hear and learn about, or what his advisors want him to hear or learn about.
You can be pro-Bush or anti-Bush, but that's hardcore ignorance, especially for a president. I don't think there's much of anything funny about it.
Do you have any idea what he uses to browse the web?
I sometimes find myself using X just to be able to easily browse the web; all other tasks can be done from a terminal. I'm not a luddite, but there is something to be said for the simplicity of just using a 'primitive environment'.
In GNU/Linux and Unix in general, the desktop is a person thing. We change it to fit our needs, our key bindings, our window dressing, our themeable widgets.
In other words, there is no way to target it because it is a moving target. Hence Linux never "conquers the desktop."
Why?
Wanting to fuck your secretary is a perfectly rational human desire, wanting to murder thousands of people to please your oil industry sponsors is not.
That was classic intercourse!
You mean aside from the fact that he has a BA from Yale and is the first President with an MBA (Harvard University, 1975)?
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
So, um, how did you post this, exactly?
Posts like this are why there needs to be a mod for Asshole, -2
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
To assume a Windows desktop isn't/can't be customized is naive and biased.
To think that "customization" means the same thing to Windows and *nix users demonstrates inexperience with *nix.
A "custom" Windows desktop is like a custom van -- some furniture, a lifted roof, some art on the sides and windows. A "custom" Linux desktop is more like a custom airplane -- it *probably* has two wings and an engine, but there are exceptions.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Doesn't say much for Harvard or Yale then does it?
That MBA didn't get him his jobs, his political connections did. (Like most of us.)
He's run at least one company into the ground before becoming President, which says he wasn't paying much attention at Harvard. (Not to mention he knew he'd still have money even if all of his workers were unemployed.)
Come to think of it, doesn't say much for the thoughtfulness of the people who voted for him either -- thinking that he was somehow qualified to do the job because his father was.
His father was a WWII vet, spent decades in Ambassadorships and eventually headed the CIA before becoming President. I can see a lot of reasons to "hire" a person like that for the Presidency.
His son, on the other hand, slacked off through Yale and Harvard on Grandpa's money, snorted cocaine through much of that process, went AWOL from his Guard unit, ran a successful oil business into the ground... and people adore him more than his dear-old-dad.
Sad.
+++OK ATH
Saved us from Carter?
The Carter administration had its problems, to say the least, but in economic terms, he left office with real gains in GDP of 14% never experiencing contraction. Reagan left up 25%, with two years of contraction and a tripled national debt. Bush I left up a pathetic 5%--one third the gains of Carter, the last year with contraction and 38% more debt. Together, Reagan and Bush increased the national debt by 430%. Clinton left with an economy having gained 33% and not a single year of contraction, admittedly the debt increased the same as under Bush I, but over twice the time. Nixon-Ford left with a net gain of 14%, with two years of contraction and 56% more debt, compared to Kennedy-Johnson over the same amount of time leaving with gains of 43% with no contraction and only 20% more debt. Roosevelt in nine years managed to leave with an economy 226% larger than that he inheirited from Hoover, who commandeered a 25% contraction.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Even if we credit Reagan and Bush with expansion--they increased the debt by over three trillion dollars in doing it. When Bush left office, the economy was 7.1 trillion. Over the whole of ReaganBush, the economy grew by 38%--by increasing the debt to practically 50% of GDP. Terrific. What an accomplishment.
My point was that the "Democrats are bad" argument posed by a certain poster was rather unfounded as the Dems have been at the helm during the greatest crises and the greatest economic recoveries. The Republicans have been in power during the greatest political and military clusterfucks and economic contractions...so one could argue that saying "Democrats are bad, we can't afford another one" is simply based in fantasy. Carter had a better economic record than Daddy Bush, for godssake, and he's the Republican's punching bag for economics.
you said that the president shold not have a learning disability. well, unless he's undergone extensive testing, nobody can make that determination. and if he has a processing deficit, say for written information, that does not impair his intelligence, understanding, or cognitive skills. it means that when he reads something, he perhaps doesn't process it as you or i would. which means maybe he knows this, and has things read to him. which means perhaps he recognizes his own weaknesses, just an idea.(which might explain his oft cited mis-speaks. as someone who sees things like this in the classroom, it is often a sign of processing deficit. of course, he's fair game.) being identified "LD", doesn't mean lack of intelligence. as for michael moore, i would assume that as the "pope of the left", anything he say will be accepted as the word of, er um, i don't know, what would a secularist deity be? he's hardly a source of truth.
as for bush, i'm very pissed at the expansive spending and growth of gov't. the medicare bill, the immigration thing, and a program for everything. what is he trying to be? pres. gore? i thought he'd cut, not expand gov't. i don't understand the liberal hatred for him. he has offered hundreds of olive branches. name one thing horrible he's done, and you get all kinds of diatribe, and no specifics. about the only thing the current crop of candidates from the democrats can say is that they'd spend even more. the issue has been the war really. and let's face it, if you were opposed to the war, we could find a ton of WMD's, and it still wouldn't matter. bush did not sell the war well, or even right. he simply should have said, "we don't know what he's got, he's not abiding by the UN, and we can't take a chance. he's had them in the past, he's used them, and we know he's tried to get them again. he's had terrorist ties in the past, currently funds hamas, al aqsa, and others, some who have ties to al qaida, he clearly has demonstrataed that while not an immediate threat, left unchecked we can only assume he will be. when that day comes, it will be too late." that's all he needed to say. but there'd be those that even if saddam had wmd's, and al qaida ties, would still say no war.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
He's President. Surely he should be able to pronounce "nuclear", eat pretzels without choking, and not make up words on the spot.
How can anyone defend such a poor excuse for a politician? Every time he steps up to the podium it looks like an episode of Days of Our Lives gone bad. He can't even read what everyone else has written for him without getting in a state. Pausing every. Two. Seconds. Trying to. Add. Emphasis. Incorrect. ly.
It doesn't take a genius to realise when someone shouldn't be in office. Even Bush himself admitted he shouldn't be there.
You can be pro-Bush or anti-Bush, but that's hardcore ignorance, especially for a president. I don't think there's much of anything funny about it.
Oh please. He has a country to run, possibly the most complex organization that ever existed. Keeping up with the news himself is a collossally bad use of his time - he has a staff to provide summaries, and he makes decisions based on those summaries. It's the same with CEOs, they are responsible for the company, but do they sign off every purchase for paperclips themselves? Do you think a General worries about the state of the paint on each and every tank? No, at the top, the job is to concentrate on the "big picture", to set policy and to delegate as much as possible.
Best debunked? Really?
I think this is a debate about the amount of destruction.
The GSA didn't find much damage to the offices and utilities themselves.
But did they fan through paper trays and listen to all the voicemail themselves?
The Post says there was no "wholesale" destruction, that doesn't exclude some pranks.
It's not like they burned down the White House or caused millions of USD damage. From the BBC story, I think they could just put those W keys back in the keyboards.
Office pranks. Actually quite funny.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
If a decision-maker relies entirely on his staff to stay informed, what function does he really serve? The staff can frame news, issues, and questions in ways that guarantee particular outcomes from the decision-maker. That puts the staff, not the decision-maker, in charge. When a person knows only what you're telling him, he's awfully easy to manipulate - child-like, really. The decision-maker doesn't have to sign off on every paper-clip purchase, but he should at least be trying to expose himself to new perspectives and interpretations of news and issues.
And yes, as you point out, a disturbing amount of the corporate world works in this insulate-the-CEO way. That doesn't make it a good idea.
I see. With what military? The British force that got whomped at Dunkirk? I agree that Europe collectively sat on its ass, but believe it was precisely because there wasn't a UN-like body with which to legally do something. The League of Nations was a failure at preventing WWII, and the UN was specifically designed to address those failures. It may not do things to your attention span's liking, and it's not 100% effective, but it gets things done. But if you don't like that example (Godwin's law and all that), try the Korean War. Did the North really have to invade? Did the US really need to cross the Yalu? Did a remotely positive outcome result? Should we have invaded Cuba in 1962 to get rid of the WMDs? If China were to claim that the US is an imminent threat to them with our well-documented WMD programs and delivery systems, would they be justified in invading us? Why not? And Clinton was going after Osama in the '90s, and might have gotten him if he had been able to keep it in his pants or at least not get caught.
I think it says something about your argument that you had to go back to the 1940s and find a president who was crippled with post-Polio to find someone whose vacation schedule compares with W.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
The "Evil Twin" is the one with the goatee.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
He can't even read what everyone else has written for him without getting in a state. Pausing every. Two. Seconds. Trying to. Add. Emphasis. Incorrect. ly.
Yeah, that's the whole point I was trying to make - he's just not good at doing that. He's a poor public speaker.
It's a shame that people believe the presidency has devolved into being a speech-making functionary. Personally, I'd much prefer somebody of strong moral character in the position, and I really couldn't care less how well he can read a teleprompter. Seems like not so long ago Presidents didn't have to worry about that - oh, right, because we didn't have live telecommunications for the first century and a half of the country.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)