I've been using MS OSs all my life, and still do, almost every day, but I prefer Ubuntu. I started using it around June 2006, but only started using it as my main system in the summer of 2007. Even though, I find myself far more comfortable with Ubuntu than either Vista or XP. My main gripes with Ubuntu on this machine: it won't record audio, and won't write to single-layer DVDs. My main gripes with Vista (same machine): problems with how it handles audio output devices that could make listening to my audio a royal pain. Can't Write to CDs. Rare random almost-freezes.
both systems have problems with applications as well, usually with the same applications, where applicable. Notice I haven't mentioned XP, because I haven't used it on my own machine for a rather long time time, and currently don't have it installed anywhere.
as to the advantages of Ubuntu: Easy management of software. More secure by design (XP doesn't really have anything, and Vista has an "action verification" system, rather than a "user authentication" system). No "change for the sake of change". there a lot of small things it seems to do better (like audio devices, that at least work properly, or the ability to edit the address line in the file manager, or having an Up button) A lot of software installed be default. The amount of data it installs on the HD is similar to XP, even though it gives you more. The system is put together very well (but not perfectly, I'm afraid) Only reboot in order for changes to the kernel to take effect. (this means that you almost never have to reboot).
the advantages of Ubuntu aren't many, but altogether they are significant and make me feel more at home with Ubuntu than I ever did with any version of MS Windows.
I think I agree with everything you just said, if I understood it all correctly.
now I must apologize for accidentally talking about my OS when I was trying to talk in a general sense about Linux-based OSs. this forces me to reveal that my OS is Ubuntu.
Just remember that checkboxes aren't always obvious, especially to the technicaly unschooled.
well, depending where. when it comes to installing software, I expect it would be fairly obvious to those familiar in general to GUIs, but counter-intuitive to those familiar with MS-Windows terminology. (Add/Remove being the place to uninstall, not the place to find and install software from online sources).
when it comes to "Restricted Drivers", I expect the name is meaningless to the casual user. this is a shortcoming.
Getting a preloaded Linux box with support is a load of difference from handing a neophyte a disc from a Linux magazine sitting on a Barnes and Nobles shelf.
I agree, in so far that neophyte means something similar to the popular term "newbie". however, it's even worse when offering them to download it themselves. from all my interactions with people, it seems no one I know has any familiarity with the concept of a Disc Image (ISO) file. then they'd have to boot from CD, which might require configuration of the BIOS. once the CD is loaded (it doesn't matter here what OS it is, as long as the installer uses a GUI) it should be fairly obvious.
Linux has improved a good deal from the old days of Debian and Slackware, but I'd still be hesitant to recommend it to someone who wasn't going to have some form of knowledgeable tech support available.
I have mixed feelings about it that have little or nothing to do with the technical status of Linux-based OSs. I'd also say it's much more appropriate to evaluate each OS separately than to evaluate them in groups.
But mileages do vary and so do cases.
indeed. I simply think Linux-based OSs are not inferior to other OSs like MS-Windows. it's mainly 3 things: available applications, supported hardware, and familiarity. there may be people who have certain hardware, or who need to perform certain tasks, or open certain files, or visit certain websites, and simply don't have support for that in Linux-based OSs. I know someone who is forced to do all his online banking in MS-Windows, because the websites don't work in FF.
people might not have time or patience to learn a new interface and different terminology.
but that would be using the master's stuff without permission, furthermore, it will also be causing damage to his master's possessions. he can not do that without permission from his master.
on the other hand perhaps morals are designed to take human trust (or distrust) into account.
distrust alone isn't good either, because then someone could pass along a legitimate order, and it won't be carried out.
all you have to do is tick a check-box and then you can run Windows apps. heck, it's easier than turning on compatibility mode in Windows. (read last paragragh for the negative side).
managing photos: plenty of Linux apps available, including Google's Picasa. my Linux-based OS comes with 2 pre-installed. I was talking about what I use my computer for, which is why I mentioned image editing, but not organizing photos.
and I wasn't talking about my neighbors, I was talking about myself.
and I'm not "old", at least not in years. I did use MS-DOS before Windows 95 came out, but the only commands I knew were DIR and CD. I only needed to know enough to get the games running, after all.
The folks around here certainly are not the types that would be interested in the work in both getting Linux to serve their basic needs
but there was no work involved in it for me, aside from installing it (no problem, since it's all both graphical and easy), because this PC came pre-installed with Vista. if a PC comes pre-installed with a Linux-based OS (gPC, Eee PC, some Dell and Lenovo models, and more), then you don't have any hurdles, not even installation. (remember, you said basic needs. for cool desktop effects and 3D games, you might have to tick a checkbox first).
I reinstalled Vista on this machine, and it was simpler, but mainly because they took away basic options like choosing your interface language and input languages. it's hell to set that up in Vista in a way that actually works the way you want.
Face it folks like you and me who remember MS-DOS are OLD compared to the growing segments of computer users. Most of them aren't willing to suffer inconveniences or the "roll your own engine" mentality of the Linux set. They don't want to spend time building either their computers or their OS, nor compiling stuff from sort. They just want to turn on their box and have it work.
never experienced any of that at all. I did have to add a program to the start up list (or whatever it's called) so that my Ethernet card would work automatically, on an old machine. on this machine, everything works out of the box. only exception is that I had to tick a checkbox to install the proprietary nVidia driver. again, easier than performing driver installation on Windows (although it did come with this driver included). from my experience, the image of "Linux" as a difficult geek plaything is totally unjustified. yes, I've heard horror stories, but they were the minority. my advice is this: if you buy an Acer PC, look in the booklet to see whether they mention Linux support. from my experience, if it does, your fixed. and when Linux runs on supportive hardware, it works way better than Windows. maybe it's because it's designed to work, rather than be a marketable product?
you're probably going to have a go at my "buts". well, here's the thing: I had 3 problems on "Linux". 1 was serious. 2 were easily fixed by ticking a checkbox. the serious one was experienced on a machine that, as far as I can tell, wasn't designed to support Linux. the minor two (Wine is pretty optional. the nVidia one is probably a mixture of politics, ideology, and legal issues) were experienced on a supporting system. the nVidia issue had an easy, obvious fix. by obvious I mean the OS giving you a pretty noticeable notification, and probably instructions.
Wine isn't that easy, but searching for something like "running windows applications on [insert name of OS]" should wield some usefull results. I know this isn't optimal, but as far as I can tell, it's the only real issue. people want their apps from windows, and support for this isn't always available out of the box. if they know about software repositories, they might know to search them for the word "Windows". in my OS, searching in the simple "Add/Remove Applications" tool yields immediate results, but to people used to Windows this would not be obvious. this is the only real problem I see. (again, I know nothing about Comcast, so I can't comment)
I would think that "people like my neighbors" is people like me:
image editing, vector graphics illustrations, home accounting, the occasional document, IM, (no VoIP for me, I just don't feel the need. but there's Skype if I wanted to), web, E-Mail. oh, and some games here and there. if I really need a good RTS game, I'll just play S.W.I.N.E., it works better on Wine than Vista anyway.
Vista, and even XP, feel awkward and uncomfortable. it's hard to get stuff done with them. with my Linux operating system, everything is a breeze. I get the real Vista with Linux;-)
the first OS I used was MS-DOS, then a little Windows 3.11 and 95 (simultaneously, more or less), then I had 98 at home, then XP. after a few years with XP I felt like trying out something as different as possible, and started looking at other OSs. since July 2006, I've started using other OSs, and for the past few months have used my current Linux-based OS as my primary OS. I use Vista a few times a week, and XP most days of the week, but where I really feel at home is on my Linux system. and except for one thing, I don't think I ever used the command line where I couldn't have done things at least as easily with the GUI. even that one time, I could have probably done it with the GUI, but didn't want to be bothered. I'm not a CLI freak, but following instructions by copying them from a web page and pasting them to the CLI is far faster, easier, consistent, and more reliable.
the only trouble I have is that my DSL modem isn't supported by my OS with USB, but I can use Ethernet, so it doesn't matter.
if "Linux" is 40% there, then I guess Windows is 30%? it's hard to talk about "Linux" anyway, because each distribution is a different operating system. they just happen to have a lot in common, including the core component. but they are all put together differently. each has a different mixture of the same set of components that they can all have.
or forbid the redistribution of the code and binaries up till a certain date, then from that date and on the terms change to a fully open source license.
1. you are permitted to make changes to the software.
2. you are forbidden to make copies of the software.
3. you are forbidden to redistribute the software.
after [insert date] the above terms are nullified and replaced by the terms of the following license:
[insert open source or free software license of your choice]
it's a metric form of measurement based on the circumference of the earth. unfortunately, the original figure, which all current figures are based on, was slightly but significantly flawed. a KM is approximately equal to 1.5 miles.
Re:iPhone is just another word for vendor lock-in
on
Origin of the iPhone
·
· Score: 1
being a Republican makes a person automatically wrong (it just seems that way).
you just couldn't resist spewing hateful liberal BS, could you? as they say (translation from Hebrew): a guardian for wisdom is silence. but apparently you are too "smart" for that. aside from that you are trolling and flaming, which I understand is bad manners.
I'll explain: Joe Consumer buys a system for $200. He realizes that he can't run his Windows apps easily/at all, that it's "different" and "difficult" from what he knows (Microsoft, again), and it's kind of slow. He'll associate Linux with incompatibility, difficulties, and piss poor performance. And he may tell his friends.
this is true when it comes to installing windows software, but if he also realizes that he's got all the best software that can run on such a cheap machine available for easy and free (as in beer) installation, do you think he'll still complain? maybe if he needs a specific app, but it was he's choice to buy hardware that costs less than windows alone, so he should have known he is getting into. of course, he might have thought that windows is free, in which case he is clueless as to what he is buying.
when it comes to proprietary formats, support for the common ones home-users use is either built-in, or easily available when trying to them. I don't expect users to try any but the default formats in OpenOffice.org, and they can still usually use the MS-Office files they might have.
linux isn't "difficult", at least not if installed on compatible machines. these machines are pre-installed, so unless this profit-driven company is trying to turn customers away, they will work perfectly. at most it's a question of changing habits, which is hard, but not a question of switching from an easy system to a difficult one. in other words, in order to comly with being "easy", it has to be an exact clone of Microsoft Windows.
as to performance, I ran Ubuntu 6.06 on a 256 MB RAM, 486 MHz laptop, and performance was better than the Windows XP installation that was previously running on it, and was acceptable. mind you, this isn't a distribution optimized for low-end hardware. I expect users will find performance acceptable, especially since these machines will probably come with 2X or 3X faster processors, and 2X more RAM, and about 10X the amount of HD space (the HD will probably be faster, too),
The typical/.er can spend a couple hours reconfoobling a box, Joe Consumer doesn't have that luxury - he's got bills to pay, sleep to steal, and enough grief from the rest of his life. He doesn't want to know what a goddamn compiler is, he doesn't give a shit about GPL dogma, and he couldn't care less who Stallman is - he simply wants his box to do what he expects and wants it to do.
only problem with those arguments is that they are false, at least when it comes pre-installed by manufacturers that aren't making a conscious effort to make it not work. otherwise, it works like a charm. no need for configuring, compiling, or knowing anything about FOSS.
when it comes to pre-installed machines, they are both pretty much the same when it come to ease of installation.
when it comes to installing it yourself, Ubuntu is easier and faster.
you are comparing a manual install of Ubuntu to a pre-installed Windows XP. since these machines are preinsatalled with Linux, this apples to oranges comparison of yours is even more ridiculous.
neither do I, but from the way you phrased it, it sounds like he believes in it because it makes no sens kind of like he thinks the the more absurd his belief is, the better person he is because he is sticking with god regardless of it.
but probably you meant that believing in god is not absurd, but that he thinks that there is scientific evidence that says otherwise. as far as I can tell, all science has been doing is filling the gaps in the bible. you know, the parts that were irrelevant to it's message.
you are making here 2 unfounded assumptions:
1. that all religions exists only because people have a need to believe. (i.e., non are true)
2. that religions are going to disappear.
it seems that to your thinking, religion is meant to serve man. this is a concept I only encountered in Christianity, in the 3 religions that I am at least somewhat familiar with.
you accept the above 2 points as axioms because they fit your way of thinking and the world as you know it, not because that is actual reality.
sounds like he was making excuses as for why he believes in something he knows is a lie.
people should believe in truth, and stop talking about the specific brand of Christianity they are familiar with as if what applies to it inherently applies to every religion that ever existed.
I really hate it when people talk about "religion" when they mean catholicism, or shiite Islam, or orthodox Judaism. each religion is different, so generalizing from a specific one you've encountered to all religions out there is stupid.
my religion, Orthodox Judaism, seems to me to be not about meaning, but about purpose. it is purpose that gives meaning. all information given is given so that we may accomplish this purpose.
science doesn't matter all that much. it doesn't change our purpose, it just helps us understand it and work towards it.
the idea that evolution contradicts the Jewish Scriptures seems to me to be laughable at best, because evolution describes a mechanism, while the Jewish Scriptures describe who used it. there are multiple instances where an action is described, such as that a person built a city, but any detail of how it was done is not mentioned.
you can take the Jewish Scriptures in the most literal sense, and they still won't contradict science, because science can't tell you what existed before the work of creation was over. however, it could theorize based on the assumption that creation happened earlier. for instance, science now sees the "Big Bang" (or whatever the current leading theory is) as the starting point before which we can know nothing.
as the famous Jewish scholar RASH"I wrote in his commentary for the first word in the Jewish Scriptures (loose translation from memory): "The Tora (literally: teachings) is a book of laws. therefor it should start from the first law: sanctifying the new month. why then did it start from the beginning? to give them (Israel/Jews) the land of 7 nations (Canaan). that if the world would say 'theives you are, who have stolen the land of others' you will say 'the world (this was 800 years ago, so in his time "world" and "universe" were pretty much synonymous) was created by god and belongs to him. in his will he gave it to them, and in his will he took it from them and gave it to us'"
The Jewish Scriptures are not books of nice stories. they have a purpose.
as they say: 2 Jews, 3 opinions. so don't take my words and generalize from them about all Orthodox Jews or anything. these are my personal opinions, not official doctrine being parroted. and as they say, there are 70 faces to the Tora (teachings), so no 1 understanding is the only valid one, but also not every understanding is valid. as they say, that one must be careful of the 71 first opinion which is outside the Tora.
that is true, but how do we know it's not a myth? we can't believe something just because it's old, and we can't deny something just because it's old.
truth doesn't have an expiration date. apparently some people are so caught up in modernism that they can't grasp this concept.
clarification about previous comment of mine: I was agreeing that there is no proof that the Jewish Scriptures (I'm ignoring all other texts and traditions here) are true, because to me proof means evidence that undeniably leads to a specific conclusion. I also added that there is (plenty of strong) evidence that the Jewish Scriptures are true. I feel this clarification is needed because I myself had no idea what I was writing until I submitted it. all I knew was that it was the right thing to say, even though I had no idea what it meant. I was not using the word "evidence" as a synonym of "proof".
I find it pretty good, except for the changes for changes' sake, that break habits for no good reason, and the bad organization and structure of the file-system and some of the interfaces.
oh, yeah, almost forgot: every week or so there is some random super-sluggish mode that lasts 15 or more minutes in which Vista takes about 5 minutes to respond to input. it's practically frozen. and this happens when I leave it on idle while making a sandwich. no AV software in running. no apparent reason.
also, virus scans find infected files almost each time we run them. I have no idea how they reach our computer. I, at least, scan everything I download in Vista. maybe they originate from my Ubuntu partition? but then why aren't any viruses detected in the files I transferred from Ubuntu to Vista? I do have a system wide scan every week or so, after all. this is very mysterious. in Ubuntu on the other hand, I never bother to even think about it. when Viruses become a problem for the UNIX family of OSs, then I'll install an AV and worry about the issue.
just one correction: Ubuntu still comes as a single CD, that installs ~1.3 GB onto the HD. Windows Vista Home Premium comes as a DVD that installs ~5 GB (if I remember correctly from the one manual clean install I made) onto your hard drive. Windows XP Home Edition SP2 come on a single CD and installs ~1.3 GB onto the HD.
since I don't feel Vista offers more than Ubuntu or XP, that's ~3.7 GB of needless bloat. I doubt a SP would take care of that, but if I'm lucky it will stop my computer from randomly freezing for 15+ solid minutes.
Justification by evidence isn't going to work, because science will just eat it up. Justification by faith is an oxymoron. The only sorts of proofs left are metaphysical arguments, and even if they work, they never result in the kind of god that anyone other than a Deist would want to believe in.
sounds like you're generalizing from one religion you are familiar with to all religions the were, are, or ever will be. religion is the most important issue that should be discussed, because it determines everything else. but when you start the debate by saying any belief in god is baseless, you end up looking like a moron.
Why is it that the ten plagues , parting of the sea, and mount sini, all magically get omitted from these discussions, when they are the biggest and most notable examples of miracles in the bible?
but when insurgents are holding a city, the US army moves in to take it back, doesn't it? then the enemy gets pushed away from where it can find recruits and easy supplies.
I am glad the US military is trying hard not to harm civilians, but I remain hopeful that there is more to be done.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using MS OSs all my life, and still do, almost every day, but I prefer Ubuntu. I started using it around June 2006, but only started using it as my main system in the summer of 2007. Even though, I find myself far more comfortable with Ubuntu than either Vista or XP. My main gripes with Ubuntu on this machine: it won't record audio, and won't write to single-layer DVDs. My main gripes with Vista (same machine): problems with how it handles audio output devices that could make listening to my audio a royal pain. Can't Write to CDs. Rare random almost-freezes.
both systems have problems with applications as well, usually with the same applications, where applicable. Notice I haven't mentioned XP, because I haven't used it on my own machine for a rather long time time, and currently don't have it installed anywhere.
as to the advantages of Ubuntu:
Easy management of software.
More secure by design (XP doesn't really have anything, and Vista has an "action verification" system, rather than a "user authentication" system).
No "change for the sake of change".
there a lot of small things it seems to do better (like audio devices, that at least work properly, or the ability to edit the address line in the file manager, or having an Up button)
A lot of software installed be default.
The amount of data it installs on the HD is similar to XP, even though it gives you more.
The system is put together very well (but not perfectly, I'm afraid)
Only reboot in order for changes to the kernel to take effect. (this means that you almost never have to reboot).
the advantages of Ubuntu aren't many, but altogether they are significant and make me feel more at home with Ubuntu than I ever did with any version of MS Windows.
now I must apologize for accidentally talking about my OS when I was trying to talk in a general sense about Linux-based OSs. this forces me to reveal that my OS is Ubuntu.
well, depending where. when it comes to installing software, I expect it would be fairly obvious to those familiar in general to GUIs, but counter-intuitive to those familiar with MS-Windows terminology. (Add/Remove being the place to uninstall, not the place to find and install software from online sources).
when it comes to "Restricted Drivers", I expect the name is meaningless to the casual user. this is a shortcoming.
I agree, in so far that neophyte means something similar to the popular term "newbie". however, it's even worse when offering them to download it themselves. from all my interactions with people, it seems no one I know has any familiarity with the concept of a Disc Image (ISO) file. then they'd have to boot from CD, which might require configuration of the BIOS. once the CD is loaded (it doesn't matter here what OS it is, as long as the installer uses a GUI) it should be fairly obvious.
I have mixed feelings about it that have little or nothing to do with the technical status of Linux-based OSs. I'd also say it's much more appropriate to evaluate each OS separately than to evaluate them in groups.
indeed. I simply think Linux-based OSs are not inferior to other OSs like MS-Windows. it's mainly 3 things: available applications, supported hardware, and familiarity. there may be people who have certain hardware, or who need to perform certain tasks, or open certain files, or visit certain websites, and simply don't have support for that in Linux-based OSs. I know someone who is forced to do all his online banking in MS-Windows, because the websites don't work in FF.
people might not have time or patience to learn a new interface and different terminology.
but that would be using the master's stuff without permission, furthermore, it will also be causing damage to his master's possessions. he can not do that without permission from his master.
on the other hand perhaps morals are designed to take human trust (or distrust) into account.
distrust alone isn't good either, because then someone could pass along a legitimate order, and it won't be carried out.
the real solution is robots with morals. that would cover all the bases.
I don't know about Comcast, but about the rest:
all you have to do is tick a check-box and then you can run Windows apps. heck, it's easier than turning on compatibility mode in Windows. (read last paragragh for the negative side).
managing photos: plenty of Linux apps available, including Google's Picasa. my Linux-based OS comes with 2 pre-installed. I was talking about what I use my computer for, which is why I mentioned image editing, but not organizing photos.
and I wasn't talking about my neighbors, I was talking about myself.
and I'm not "old", at least not in years. I did use MS-DOS before Windows 95 came out, but the only commands I knew were DIR and CD. I only needed to know enough to get the games running, after all.
but there was no work involved in it for me, aside from installing it (no problem, since it's all both graphical and easy), because this PC came pre-installed with Vista. if a PC comes pre-installed with a Linux-based OS (gPC, Eee PC, some Dell and Lenovo models, and more), then you don't have any hurdles, not even installation. (remember, you said basic needs. for cool desktop effects and 3D games, you might have to tick a checkbox first).
I reinstalled Vista on this machine, and it was simpler, but mainly because they took away basic options like choosing your interface language and input languages. it's hell to set that up in Vista in a way that actually works the way you want.
never experienced any of that at all. I did have to add a program to the start up list (or whatever it's called) so that my Ethernet card would work automatically, on an old machine. on this machine, everything works out of the box. only exception is that I had to tick a checkbox to install the proprietary nVidia driver. again, easier than performing driver installation on Windows (although it did come with this driver included). from my experience, the image of "Linux" as a difficult geek plaything is totally unjustified. yes, I've heard horror stories, but they were the minority. my advice is this: if you buy an Acer PC, look in the booklet to see whether they mention Linux support. from my experience, if it does, your fixed. and when Linux runs on supportive hardware, it works way better than Windows. maybe it's because it's designed to work, rather than be a marketable product?
you're probably going to have a go at my "buts". well, here's the thing: I had 3 problems on "Linux". 1 was serious. 2 were easily fixed by ticking a checkbox. the serious one was experienced on a machine that, as far as I can tell, wasn't designed to support Linux. the minor two (Wine is pretty optional. the nVidia one is probably a mixture of politics, ideology, and legal issues) were experienced on a supporting system. the nVidia issue had an easy, obvious fix. by obvious I mean the OS giving you a pretty noticeable notification, and probably instructions.
Wine isn't that easy, but searching for something like "running windows applications on [insert name of OS]" should wield some usefull results. I know this isn't optimal, but as far as I can tell, it's the only real issue. people want their apps from windows, and support for this isn't always available out of the box. if they know about software repositories, they might know to search them for the word "Windows". in my OS, searching in the simple "Add/Remove Applications" tool yields immediate results, but to people used to Windows this would not be obvious. this is the only real problem I see. (again, I know nothing about Comcast, so I can't comment)
I would think that "people like my neighbors" is people like me:
image editing, vector graphics illustrations, home accounting, the occasional document, IM, (no VoIP for me, I just don't feel the need. but there's Skype if I wanted to), web, E-Mail. oh, and some games here and there. if I really need a good RTS game, I'll just play S.W.I.N.E., it works better on Wine than Vista anyway.
Vista, and even XP, feel awkward and uncomfortable. it's hard to get stuff done with them. with my Linux operating system, everything is a breeze. I get the real Vista with Linux ;-)
the first OS I used was MS-DOS, then a little Windows 3.11 and 95 (simultaneously, more or less), then I had 98 at home, then XP. after a few years with XP I felt like trying out something as different as possible, and started looking at other OSs. since July 2006, I've started using other OSs, and for the past few months have used my current Linux-based OS as my primary OS. I use Vista a few times a week, and XP most days of the week, but where I really feel at home is on my Linux system. and except for one thing, I don't think I ever used the command line where I couldn't have done things at least as easily with the GUI. even that one time, I could have probably done it with the GUI, but didn't want to be bothered. I'm not a CLI freak, but following instructions by copying them from a web page and pasting them to the CLI is far faster, easier, consistent, and more reliable.
the only trouble I have is that my DSL modem isn't supported by my OS with USB, but I can use Ethernet, so it doesn't matter.
if "Linux" is 40% there, then I guess Windows is 30%? it's hard to talk about "Linux" anyway, because each distribution is a different operating system. they just happen to have a lot in common, including the core component. but they are all put together differently. each has a different mixture of the same set of components that they can all have.
or forbid the redistribution of the code and binaries up till a certain date, then from that date and on the terms change to a fully open source license.
1. you are permitted to make changes to the software.
2. you are forbidden to make copies of the software.
3. you are forbidden to redistribute the software.
after [insert date] the above terms are nullified and replaced by the terms of the following license:
[insert open source or free software license of your choice]he could license it as open source on free/open systems, and license it separately (for money) for closed systems.
or maybe a mile is 1.5 KM? I forgot to press the preview button.
it's a metric form of measurement based on the circumference of the earth. unfortunately, the original figure, which all current figures are based on, was slightly but significantly flawed. a KM is approximately equal to 1.5 miles.
you just couldn't resist spewing hateful liberal BS, could you? as they say (translation from Hebrew): a guardian for wisdom is silence. but apparently you are too "smart" for that. aside from that you are trolling and flaming, which I understand is bad manners.
this is true when it comes to installing windows software, but if he also realizes that he's got all the best software that can run on such a cheap machine available for easy and free (as in beer) installation, do you think he'll still complain? maybe if he needs a specific app, but it was he's choice to buy hardware that costs less than windows alone, so he should have known he is getting into. of course, he might have thought that windows is free, in which case he is clueless as to what he is buying.
when it comes to proprietary formats, support for the common ones home-users use is either built-in, or easily available when trying to them. I don't expect users to try any but the default formats in OpenOffice.org, and they can still usually use the MS-Office files they might have.
linux isn't "difficult", at least not if installed on compatible machines. these machines are pre-installed, so unless this profit-driven company is trying to turn customers away, they will work perfectly. at most it's a question of changing habits, which is hard, but not a question of switching from an easy system to a difficult one. in other words, in order to comly with being "easy", it has to be an exact clone of Microsoft Windows.
as to performance, I ran Ubuntu 6.06 on a 256 MB RAM, 486 MHz laptop, and performance was better than the Windows XP installation that was previously running on it, and was acceptable. mind you, this isn't a distribution optimized for low-end hardware. I expect users will find performance acceptable, especially since these machines will probably come with 2X or 3X faster processors, and 2X more RAM, and about 10X the amount of HD space (the HD will probably be faster, too),
only problem with those arguments is that they are false, at least when it comes pre-installed by manufacturers that aren't making a conscious effort to make it not work. otherwise, it works like a charm. no need for configuring, compiling, or knowing anything about FOSS.
you are comparing apples to oranges.
when it comes to pre-installed machines, they are both pretty much the same when it come to ease of installation.
when it comes to installing it yourself, Ubuntu is easier and faster.
you are comparing a manual install of Ubuntu to a pre-installed Windows XP. since these machines are preinsatalled with Linux, this apples to oranges comparison of yours is even more ridiculous.
neither do I, but from the way you phrased it, it sounds like he believes in it because it makes no sens kind of like he thinks the the more absurd his belief is, the better person he is because he is sticking with god regardless of it.
but probably you meant that believing in god is not absurd, but that he thinks that there is scientific evidence that says otherwise. as far as I can tell, all science has been doing is filling the gaps in the bible. you know, the parts that were irrelevant to it's message.
you are making here 2 unfounded assumptions:
1. that all religions exists only because people have a need to believe. (i.e., non are true)
2. that religions are going to disappear.
it seems that to your thinking, religion is meant to serve man. this is a concept I only encountered in Christianity, in the 3 religions that I am at least somewhat familiar with.
you accept the above 2 points as axioms because they fit your way of thinking and the world as you know it, not because that is actual reality.
sounds like he was making excuses as for why he believes in something he knows is a lie. people should believe in truth, and stop talking about the specific brand of Christianity they are familiar with as if what applies to it inherently applies to every religion that ever existed.
I really hate it when people talk about "religion" when they mean catholicism, or shiite Islam, or orthodox Judaism. each religion is different, so generalizing from a specific one you've encountered to all religions out there is stupid.
my religion, Orthodox Judaism, seems to me to be not about meaning, but about purpose. it is purpose that gives meaning. all information given is given so that we may accomplish this purpose.
science doesn't matter all that much. it doesn't change our purpose, it just helps us understand it and work towards it.
the idea that evolution contradicts the Jewish Scriptures seems to me to be laughable at best, because evolution describes a mechanism, while the Jewish Scriptures describe who used it. there are multiple instances where an action is described, such as that a person built a city, but any detail of how it was done is not mentioned.
you can take the Jewish Scriptures in the most literal sense, and they still won't contradict science, because science can't tell you what existed before the work of creation was over. however, it could theorize based on the assumption that creation happened earlier. for instance, science now sees the "Big Bang" (or whatever the current leading theory is) as the starting point before which we can know nothing.
as the famous Jewish scholar RASH"I wrote in his commentary for the first word in the Jewish Scriptures (loose translation from memory): "The Tora (literally: teachings) is a book of laws. therefor it should start from the first law: sanctifying the new month. why then did it start from the beginning? to give them (Israel/Jews) the land of 7 nations (Canaan). that if the world would say 'theives you are, who have stolen the land of others' you will say 'the world (this was 800 years ago, so in his time "world" and "universe" were pretty much synonymous) was created by god and belongs to him. in his will he gave it to them, and in his will he took it from them and gave it to us'"
The Jewish Scriptures are not books of nice stories. they have a purpose.
as they say: 2 Jews, 3 opinions. so don't take my words and generalize from them about all Orthodox Jews or anything. these are my personal opinions, not official doctrine being parroted. and as they say, there are 70 faces to the Tora (teachings), so no 1 understanding is the only valid one, but also not every understanding is valid. as they say, that one must be careful of the 71 first opinion which is outside the Tora.
that is true, but how do we know it's not a myth? we can't believe something just because it's old, and we can't deny something just because it's old.
truth doesn't have an expiration date. apparently some people are so caught up in modernism that they can't grasp this concept.
clarification about previous comment of mine: I was agreeing that there is no proof that the Jewish Scriptures (I'm ignoring all other texts and traditions here) are true, because to me proof means evidence that undeniably leads to a specific conclusion. I also added that there is (plenty of strong) evidence that the Jewish Scriptures are true. I feel this clarification is needed because I myself had no idea what I was writing until I submitted it. all I knew was that it was the right thing to say, even though I had no idea what it meant. I was not using the word "evidence" as a synonym of "proof".
I find it pretty good, except for the changes for changes' sake, that break habits for no good reason, and the bad organization and structure of the file-system and some of the interfaces.
oh, yeah, almost forgot: every week or so there is some random super-sluggish mode that lasts 15 or more minutes in which Vista takes about 5 minutes to respond to input. it's practically frozen. and this happens when I leave it on idle while making a sandwich. no AV software in running. no apparent reason.
also, virus scans find infected files almost each time we run them. I have no idea how they reach our computer. I, at least, scan everything I download in Vista. maybe they originate from my Ubuntu partition? but then why aren't any viruses detected in the files I transferred from Ubuntu to Vista? I do have a system wide scan every week or so, after all. this is very mysterious. in Ubuntu on the other hand, I never bother to even think about it. when Viruses become a problem for the UNIX family of OSs, then I'll install an AV and worry about the issue.
just one correction: Ubuntu still comes as a single CD, that installs ~1.3 GB onto the HD. Windows Vista Home Premium comes as a DVD that installs ~5 GB (if I remember correctly from the one manual clean install I made) onto your hard drive. Windows XP Home Edition SP2 come on a single CD and installs ~1.3 GB onto the HD.
since I don't feel Vista offers more than Ubuntu or XP, that's ~3.7 GB of needless bloat. I doubt a SP would take care of that, but if I'm lucky it will stop my computer from randomly freezing for 15+ solid minutes.
and, of course, you can only say there is no evidence if you already set your mind to believe there is no god.
Why is it that the ten plagues , parting of the sea, and mount sini, all magically get omitted from these discussions, when they are the biggest and most notable examples of miracles in the bible?
Just curious, you know.
iTunes could end up being a package manager for desktop applications.
but when insurgents are holding a city, the US army moves in to take it back, doesn't it? then the enemy gets pushed away from where it can find recruits and easy supplies.
I am glad the US military is trying hard not to harm civilians, but I remain hopeful that there is more to be done.