A cheapo paperback novel is not comparable to a newspaper. Your nonsense about "equivalent jobs" does not hold true.
a. It is not "nonsense". b. It does hold true.
Your typical, cheapo paperback will have been written by ONE author, at and most two editors.
Yep, and that one author will write just about every word (whatever the editors don't change). Which runs in tens of thousands of words that the author must write and the editors must read.
A typical daily newspaper, on the other hand, will have portions written by literally hundreds of reporters/journalists, with several editors and fact-checkers being involved as well.
The costs add up significantly. Novels just don't incur the same expenses.
Been over that already. Yes they do, for everything except the fact checking and the paper-boy delivering it.
Indeed, look at the price of any book with actual photos and content. Like a textbook, or computer-related books. They'll run you upwards of $30, if not well more than $70 for better quality books.
No, you can find books that are that expensive but you've claimed that NEWSPAPERS would be $15 each without ads.
I've shown that paperback books have most of the same requirements AND they have to PAY for advertising, but they're a fraction of what you claimed the newspapers would cost.
Don't tell me that you can find more expensive books. That isn't the issue. I'm sure you can. But the fact is that paperback books are less expensive than your newspaper claim AND they have most of the same expenses.
Unless the difference is going to the paperboy or fact checkers, you are... wrong.
I can buy a whole paperback book for less than what you claim the cost of a paper would be.
They have to pay all of the printing costs.
Yep. So does the book publisher.
They have to pay the journalists. They have to pay the reporters.
Not much difference between the two. And the book publisher has to pay the author.
They have to pay the editors.
Again, the same as in the paperback book world.
They have to pay for the delivery of the paper to your front door.
Yeah, I'm sure the paperboy is raking in $50K+ a year.
So, the cash difference between your $15 paper and the paperback book I buy is... the amount paid to the paperboy.
I really don't think so.
Sure, the newspaper itself appears to be very little, but it is the cumulation of much work by many people. That costs money. Lots of money.
Again, you must have, somehow, missed the point of my paperback book question. Equivalent jobs are held there AND it takes longer to get an edition out but the cost is so much less.
AND the paperback book company would STILL be paying for advertising. With books, ads are an expense. With newspapers, ads are revenue.
Real world snipers aim for the center of mass. Right in the middle of your chest.
Now, in a comic book world, where the sniper knows that the action hero is heavily armoured, the sniper COULD aim for the crotch area and hope to sever a main artery that supplies the leg.
Or said sniper could shoot for the buttocks and hope to hit the sciatic nerve and end said action hero's action days.
In fact, it's very difficult to armour the hips without limiting mobility.
But such stories wouldn't be as interesting as the ones where the bad guys never think or learn.
I have never had a single problem with any ASUS motherboard. I cannot recommend them highly enough.
I have had problems with 1 of the 3 ECS boards I've used. Also, in Windows on one of them, the on-board NIC was set to "not optimal" and it took a lot of digging to find that.
The ECS motherboards are very pretty to look at, but I still recommend ASUS.
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.
Ummm, if you prevented their births, they wouldn't exist to "fade into the ether".
It could be happening all the time and you wouldn't be aware of it (by definition).
And now a team of physicists from the US and Austria says this situation can only be the case if there are physical constraints acting to protect the present from changes in the past.
Sounds like bad fiction to me.
The researchers say these constraints exist because of the weird laws of quantum mechanics even though, traditionally, they don't account for a backwards movement in time.
Sounds like the techno-babble "justification" in the bad fiction.
So, if you know the present, you cannot change it.
And the easiest way to not change it is for time travel to be impossible.
If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past.
If, for example, you knew a picture would be taken, you could reflect light from your body and appear in that picture, thereby altering the future.
So, travelling back in time, you cannot reflect light, and, by the same token, you cannot absorbe light.
And it just moves up from there for all other physical effects. Nothing touched, no air breathed, no light disturbed, nothing.
I thought my analogy was "they're both guilt by unknowing association, no matter what the end result is". Should I spell it out some more? I'll do so now.
No, I didn't see that in there.
A formal analogy is in the format a:b::y:z so you might want to try fitting your "analogy" into that format. That will show where you're wrong.
In our current situation, we have a guy renting a car at Enterprise. He deals crack.
Okay, so A = Enterprise? A = Renting car? A = Renting car at Enterprise? A = Dealing crack?
Which is it? Remember, the analogy is about the relationship.
The crack dealer gets caught by the police.
And now you're introducing the police.
A = police? A = caught by police?
Or are you onto item B now?
Since he was driving a car he rented by Enterprise, according to this particular blacklist's logic, every person who rents a car at Enterprise is now guilty.
Oh, look, now you've introduced ANOTHER item, the blacklist.
I guess in YOUR world, an analogy is... A:B:C:D:E:F::Y:Z
Maybe you shouldn't use the term "analogy" at all, okay?
The police then go out and arrest everyone who rented a car at Enterprise, because they are also guilty.
Again, you might want to review what an "analogy" is before you start claiming that you're stating one.
Here's a BETTER analogy for you:
(non-spammer on email blacklist) is to (message rejected) as (black man) is to (not picked up by taxi driver)
See the relationship? See how there are only two items in each relationship? See how the relationships are compared?
"If someone does something wrong while using ServiceX, everyone at ServiceX gets punished. Even if no one using ServiceX knows any of the other clients there, regardless of whether they were also breaking RuleY, they get punished as well, just because someone they never met fucked up."
You might want to look at how many items you just mentioned and then look at my REAL analogy and see where you failed.
That's how this "analogy" I've posited ties in with this situation.
Only if you don't know what an "analogy" is, which, clearly, you don't.
If I had spent more time developing an analogy, that would be fine. But I guess I expected the readers here to use at least a smidgen of their supposed IQs and figure this out on their own. It may not be pretty, but it does work.
Again, analogies are very simple and very easy.
But there are lots of people who don't have the education to understand what an analogy is. You seem to be one of them.
A number of open source3 and bespoke trojans, altered to avoid antivirus detection, have been used. The wide variety and constant evolution of the trojans used appears to be an attacker strategy to identify the conditions needed to successfully penetrate a network.
Sounds like the regular spam and virus crap I get.
Maybe the "far eastern" enemies think I'm part of the British government?
Investigate anomalous slow-running machines, looking for unknown processes or unexpected Internet connections, as this may be an indication of malicious programs operating in the background. User reports of such behaviour should be encouraged and fully investigated.
Oh yeah. That's going to be GREAT!
No more of those "reboot and see if it fixes the problem" comments. Now it has to be "fully investigated".
Implement spam filtering to guard against infrastructures commonly used by the attackers. Anti-spam measures such as greylisting/blacklisting of dial-ups, open proxies and open relays, in addition to more sophisticated methods (e.g. Bayesian filtering) can be effective protective measures.
But I already do that.
Wow, my email system is more "secure" than the British governments! Who would have guessed!
Your "analogy" is: bad IP address:blocking by email admin as bad neighborhood:vigilante shooting
So, no, your analogy makes no sense in this context unless you somehow equate an email message being rejected as being similar to a person being killed.
Let me reword your justification of of this behaviour so others can see the flaw in it more clearly:
As long as you're up to the task...
[66.163.161.45 is a filthy neighborhood. Lots of criminals live there. So, a group of vigilantes randomly started machine gunning people walking the street.
Excuse me, but who's been shot?
No one?
Then your analogy is not accurate.
Certain admins running certain email servers are rejecting/flagging his messages because they come from a "bad neighborhood".
No one is being shot or physically injured in any way, fashion or form.
Some days it's hard choosing between deleting 400 spams a day and dealing with the exsistance of "spam blocking" groups. Then I read a comment from an "anti-spam" person and I think I'll be safer choosing to work that delete key.
And that is a valid option and a valid choice.
But I'm the admin for a company of about 150 people. 400 messages a day x 150 people = a problem.
So I use a few blacklists and deny the connections. No one gets shot, no one dies.
There is always the phone and I do include my phone number in the rejection notice. If a person gets the reject notice, that person can call me or the person s/he was trying to email and I can make a specific exception.
I've blocked over a million spam messages yet I've only had 4 calls (Bell South is staffed by idiots).
I have 3 executives here who are 100% behind my anti-spam efforts. You might not mind manually deleting 400 messages a day, but they do.
So...it's okay if he goes to Federal Pound-Him-In-The-Ass penitentiary just because he rented a car from a place that also rented a car to a crack dealer?
I must have missed the part where he's being anal raped.
Maybe you or the mod's who mod'ed you up can quote that bit?
I didn't think so.
This isn't about going to jail. This is about some people not hearing what he's saying.
No one's being raped or jailed or tortured. Some of his EMAIL is not getting to the people who asked for it because THEIR admins use the blacklists.
We've been blacklisted before and the sysadmins who run these things often WILL NOT remove you, no matter what.
Specifics, please.
Which lists?
Was this the first time you were listed or were you listed 3 or more times?
I'd take all the SPAM anyday vs. not being able to send legitimate emails.
That isn't the way it works.
Am I willing to accept all that spam just so you can send email to me?
The answer is... no.
If YOU want to send email without being on the spam lists, there are LOTS of options open to you. Sure, some of them are more expensive than others... but that's what happens when your ISP subsidises your email account by taking on more lucrative spammers.
This all comes down to money and time. I use blacklists and I like them because they save me time and money.
He is a success story. He made a lot of money and is world famous.
Looking back on his life, there will be certain items that he deems to be "important".
Looking back on anyone's life will also yield certain "important" choices or events or whatever. Those are items that shaped your life.
But that does not mean that someone else can imitate those choices and get a similar life. As you noted, some drop out because they're smart, but more drop out because they aren't. It isn't the dropping out.
And I don't believe that Steve's "experience" with cheap college life and calligraphy would mean much if not for a certain Steve Wozniak.
They'll change the chipset on a card, but keep the same card name/make and maybe model (or they'll change the final letter of the model).
So someone tells you to buy card X from vendor Y because it works without any setup and the card that you buy bears no relationship to the card that he has other than it has the same vendor and name.
And then people get upset when you ask them "what chipset is it" because they shouldn't have to know what chips they have, it should just work.
And did I say anything along those lines? No, I didn't.
From your previous post.
Ah yes, the tired old "If Linux is not good enough for you, it's because you're not good enough for Linux" argument. Ten years ago I used to spout that elitist bullshit, too.
None actually- I've run many Linux servers over the years without difficulty. Which kinda makes me chuckle. I can run a HA server with a crazy long uptime and little to no maintenance and as a result little to no sweat, blood, or tears.
So, when you use Linux in a task that Linux is good at, Linux rocks.
However, something like getting sound to work can still be very painful.
And when you use Linux in a task that Linux still needs to improve on, Linux sucks.
Which doesn't really match your original comment:
I think it is pretty telling that someone who has a lot of technical expertise has the same problems that a lot of us have had with desktop Linux. The problem is real, folks.
No one said it was NOT real.
If Linux on the desktop is to survive,...
Which means that if people do not follow your advice, Linux on the desktop will die.
I don't think so.
I think that Linux is following a very simple evolutionary route. Linux is GREAT on hardware that people have had time to hack or have Free access to the documentation.
Linux sucks on hardware that is proprietary that people haven't had sufficient time to hack yet.
Sound, video and wireless are the main "problems" with home desktops running Linux. That is because the chips change so fast and the vendors refuse to open their specs.
But that won't matter because Linux will start to take over the market segments where those issues are not as important (servers and corporate/government desktops). As Linux makes more progress in those, the hardware vendors will start to support it more. Getting sound to work right across 10,000 machines with a mix of sound chips and cards is a pain. Getting sound to work on government office with 10,000 similar machines is much easier. And it only takes a few like that before the hardware vendors start supporting Linux better.
There is no reason why Linux cannot operate on your home desktop as well as it operates on your servers. In time, it will. But the first steps will be the ones that yield the most results.
If some individuals would spend the time they do hunting down negative comments about Linux, to actually fix Linux...
Hunting down articles doesn't require to you learn any programming language. Anyone can hunt down articles, very few people can program. So the two groups aren't coincident.
...you wouldn't have to worry about people exposing how difficult Linux is for the average user.
What "worry"? Linux is very easy to install and run... except for sound, wireless, 3D graphics and certain laptop chipsets.
Now, if your "average user" does not use those features, then Linux is easier than Windows and on par with a Mac.
The "problem" is that most of the HOME user market DOES want those features. But the CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT desktop will NOT focus on those features.
So it all depends upon how you segment the market on whether this is an "issue" or a "critical problem".
I'm all for bringing Linux to the mainstream and replacing Windows as the dominant OS,...
Eh, whatever. It's a tool. You use whatever works best in each situation. The key point with Linux is that it CAN be modified to suit your requirements.
...but that just won't happen until the average person can install their video games without calling tech support.
The home desktop market will be the LAST market segment that will fall to Linux.
First will be the servers - we're already seeing this happen.
Second will be the corporate/government desktops - this is just beginning.
Last will be the home market - there are just too many limited-run, proprietary hardware pieces out there that work "good enough" right now. In time I believe they will migrate to Linux. But focusing on the LAST segment and claiming that there's a problem when the OTHER segments are starting to migrate is just silly.
Now, all I want is a desktop computer that works for me -- not vice versa -- and Linux just doesn't cut it.
Here's a flash of insight for you.
Not EVERY system is right for EVERY person.
Use whatever works for you.
By the same token, don't tell anyone that their choice is wrong or doesn't work or whatever.
Ten years ago I used to spout that elitist bullshit, too.
Why? It's a computer OS. It's a tool. Linux works GREAT for me and I'm probably never going to switch. But I don't use my computer as a TV, stereo or game console. For someone who wants those specific features, then a Mac would probably be a better tool.
But it's just a tool. It isn't a threat. You using a Mac does NOT mean that I'm a bad person for using Linux. I run Ubuntu and no, the sound does not work and I'm not going to mess with it because it doesn't interest me.
It used to be Debian was the distro you used when you wanted a minimal system with guarenteed security patches. It was the "reliable" server distro.
"It used to be..."
Are you saying that it is not anymore? It seems rock solid to me. The only time it is ever rebooted is to install a new kernel.
Want a reliable server? - use Suse,...
Again, are you saying that Debian is NOT a reliable server? I have 6 Debian boxes and they seem stable and reliable.
Want a nice stable reliable desktop - use Ubutu.
Ummm, Ubuntu is based off of Debian.
You left off "recovery CD" which would be Knoppix (again, based off of Debian).
What exactly does this new release of Debian offer besides retro-linux creds?
The same thing that Debian has always offered, reliability and stability.
Just because you can find OTHER distributions that have similar features does not mean that Debian lacks those features.
Unless you can show that Debian is less stable/reliable than SuSE, then all you are doing is complaining that different people make different choices in which distribution they run. And how does that rate "insightful"?
Slashdot Mirror
a. It is not "nonsense".
b. It does hold true.
Yep, and that one author will write just about every word (whatever the editors don't change). Which runs in tens of thousands of words that the author must write and the editors must read.
Yes, there are more people writing for the newspaper, but they are each writing a small fraction of what the author writes. Many articles won't be over 100 words.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
The start reading through the "Local" section.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story
There, 88 words. And that's a typical example of a non-headline story.
Been over that already. Yes they do, for everything except the fact checking and the paper-boy delivering it.
No, you can find books that are that expensive but you've claimed that NEWSPAPERS would be $15 each without ads.
I've shown that paperback books have most of the same requirements AND they have to PAY for advertising, but they're a fraction of what you claimed the newspapers would cost.
Don't tell me that you can find more expensive books. That isn't the issue. I'm sure you can. But the fact is that paperback books are less expensive than your newspaper claim AND they have most of the same expenses.
Unless the difference is going to the paperboy or fact checkers, you are
That will be recorded in the database.
It sounds like you are not happy with this.
Failure to be happy is treason.
In Soviet Amerika, our new Overlords welcome you.
Yep. So does the book publisher.
Not much difference between the two. And the book publisher has to pay the author.
Again, the same as in the paperback book world.
Yeah, I'm sure the paperboy is raking in $50K+ a year.
So, the cash difference between your $15 paper and the paperback book I buy is
I really don't think so.
Again, you must have, somehow, missed the point of my paperback book question. Equivalent jobs are held there AND it takes longer to get an edition out but the cost is so much less.
AND the paperback book company would STILL be paying for advertising. With books, ads are an expense. With newspapers, ads are revenue.
$15 for a few sheets smacked with movable type-set?
What's that $15 paying for?
Why can I buy a whole paperback book that took at least a few months to write for less than that?
Real world snipers aim for the center of mass. Right in the middle of your chest.
Now, in a comic book world, where the sniper knows that the action hero is heavily armoured, the sniper COULD aim for the crotch area and hope to sever a main artery that supplies the leg.
Or said sniper could shoot for the buttocks and hope to hit the sciatic nerve and end said action hero's action days.
In fact, it's very difficult to armour the hips without limiting mobility.
But such stories wouldn't be as interesting as the ones where the bad guys never think or learn.
Us old guys remember the old Doc Savage books (and The Avenger ones, too).
It's called "monomania". It's a type of paranoia.
Yep, if ECS made 2.5x as many boards as ASUS, then you'd expect to see 2.5x as many complains.
But you'd also expect to see 2.5x as many "It works great for me so all I buy are ECS boards".
But you don't see that. But you DO see people saying that all they buy are ASUS boards (or Tyan or Gigabit or x).
With that kind of response, there's more to it than simple numbers of boards produced.
I have never had a single problem with any ASUS motherboard. I cannot recommend them highly enough.
I have had problems with 1 of the 3 ECS boards I've used. Also, in Windows on one of them, the on-board NIC was set to "not optimal" and it took a lot of digging to find that.
The ECS motherboards are very pretty to look at, but I still recommend ASUS.
It could be happening all the time and you wouldn't be aware of it (by definition).
Sounds like bad fiction to me.Sounds like the techno-babble "justification" in the bad fiction.And the easiest way to not change it is for time travel to be impossible.If, for example, you knew a picture would be taken, you could reflect light from your body and appear in that picture, thereby altering the future.
So, travelling back in time, you cannot reflect light, and, by the same token, you cannot absorbe light.
And it just moves up from there for all other physical effects. Nothing touched, no air breathed, no light disturbed, nothing.
So, how would you even know you were in the past?
A formal analogy is in the format a:b::y:z so you might want to try fitting your "analogy" into that format. That will show where you're wrong.Okay, so
A = Enterprise?
A = Renting car?
A = Renting car at Enterprise?
A = Dealing crack?
Which is it? Remember, the analogy is about the relationship.And now you're introducing the police.
A = police?
A = caught by police?
Or are you onto item B now?Oh, look, now you've introduced ANOTHER item, the blacklist.
I guess in YOUR world, an analogy is
A:B:C:D:E:F::Y:Z
Maybe you shouldn't use the term "analogy" at all, okay?Again, you might want to review what an "analogy" is before you start claiming that you're stating one.
Here's a BETTER analogy for you:
(non-spammer on email blacklist)
is to
(message rejected)
as
(black man)
is to
(not picked up by taxi driver)
See the relationship? See how there are only two items in each relationship? See how the relationships are compared?You might want to look at how many items you just mentioned and then look at my REAL analogy and see where you failed.Only if you don't know what an "analogy" is, which, clearly, you don't.Again, analogies are very simple and very easy.
But there are lots of people who don't have the education to understand what an analogy is. You seem to be one of them.
Here's a link to help you (in addition to the one I've already supplied):
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm
Maybe the "far eastern" enemies think I'm part of the British government?Oh yeah. That's going to be GREAT!
No more of those "reboot and see if it fixes the problem" comments. Now it has to be "fully investigated".But I already do that.
Wow, my email system is more "secure" than the British governments! Who would have guessed!
Okay, I think that YOU are the one that does not understand an "analogy".
And analogy is a comparision between two pairs that have the same relationship.They do, which is why I asked who had been shot.
Here's a site to help you: http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/joeo/sa_analogy.htm
Your "analogy" is:
bad IP address:blocking by email admin
as
bad neighborhood:vigilante shooting
So, no, your analogy makes no sense in this context unless you somehow equate an email message being rejected as being similar to a person being killed.
I've been on several ISP's over the years and not a single one has EVER blocked ANY email to me.
EVER.
I get TONS of spam on my personal accounts.
Can ANYONE give me the name of a single ISP that will block email so that it can be confirmed?
It's far easier for an ISP to put a limit on mail box capacity and do smtp-time rejection based upon that.
Excuse me, but who's been shot?
No one?
Then your analogy is not accurate.
Certain admins running certain email servers are rejecting/flagging his messages because they come from a "bad neighborhood".
No one is being shot or physically injured in any way, fashion or form.
And that is a valid option and a valid choice.
But I'm the admin for a company of about 150 people. 400 messages a day x 150 people = a problem.
So I use a few blacklists and deny the connections. No one gets shot, no one dies.
There is always the phone and I do include my phone number in the rejection notice. If a person gets the reject notice, that person can call me or the person s/he was trying to email and I can make a specific exception.
I've blocked over a million spam messages yet I've only had 4 calls (Bell South is staffed by idiots).
I have 3 executives here who are 100% behind my anti-spam efforts. You might not mind manually deleting 400 messages a day, but they do.
Maybe you or the mod's who mod'ed you up can quote that bit?
I didn't think so.
This isn't about going to jail. This is about some people not hearing what he's saying.
No one's being raped or jailed or tortured. Some of his EMAIL is not getting to the people who asked for it because THEIR admins use the blacklists.
How about a little perspective?
Which lists?
Was this the first time you were listed or were you listed 3 or more times?
That isn't the way it works.
Am I willing to accept all that spam just so you can send email to me?
The answer is
If YOU want to send email without being on the spam lists, there are LOTS of options open to you. Sure, some of them are more expensive than others
This all comes down to money and time. I use blacklists and I like them because they save me time and money.
He is a success story. He made a lot of money and is world famous.
Looking back on his life, there will be certain items that he deems to be "important".
Looking back on anyone's life will also yield certain "important" choices or events or whatever. Those are items that shaped your life.
But that does not mean that someone else can imitate those choices and get a similar life. As you noted, some drop out because they're smart, but more drop out because they aren't. It isn't the dropping out.
And I don't believe that Steve's "experience" with cheap college life and calligraphy would mean much if not for a certain Steve Wozniak.
They'll change the chipset on a card, but keep the same card name/make and maybe model (or they'll change the final letter of the model).
So someone tells you to buy card X from vendor Y because it works without any setup and the card that you buy bears no relationship to the card that he has other than it has the same vendor and name.
And then people get upset when you ask them "what chipset is it" because they shouldn't have to know what chips they have, it should just work.
I'm looking at you, 3Com.
From your previous post.
You admit that you did. Too bad, you lose.
So, when you use Linux in a task that Linux is good at, Linux rocks.
And when you use Linux in a task that Linux still needs to improve on, Linux sucks.
Which doesn't really match your original comment:
No one said it was NOT real.
Which means that if people do not follow your advice, Linux on the desktop will die.
I don't think so.
I think that Linux is following a very simple evolutionary route. Linux is GREAT on hardware that people have had time to hack or have Free access to the documentation.
Linux sucks on hardware that is proprietary that people haven't had sufficient time to hack yet.
Sound, video and wireless are the main "problems" with home desktops running Linux. That is because the chips change so fast and the vendors refuse to open their specs.
But that won't matter because Linux will start to take over the market segments where those issues are not as important (servers and corporate/government desktops). As Linux makes more progress in those, the hardware vendors will start to support it more. Getting sound to work right across 10,000 machines with a mix of sound chips and cards is a pain. Getting sound to work on government office with 10,000 similar machines is much easier. And it only takes a few like that before the hardware vendors start supporting Linux better.
There is no reason why Linux cannot operate on your home desktop as well as it operates on your servers. In time, it will. But the first steps will be the ones that yield the most results.
Hunting down articles doesn't require to you learn any programming language. Anyone can hunt down articles, very few people can program. So the two groups aren't coincident.
What "worry"? Linux is very easy to install and run
Now, if your "average user" does not use those features, then Linux is easier than Windows and on par with a Mac.
The "problem" is that most of the HOME user market DOES want those features. But the CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT desktop will NOT focus on those features.
So it all depends upon how you segment the market on whether this is an "issue" or a "critical problem".
Eh, whatever. It's a tool. You use whatever works best in each situation. The key point with Linux is that it CAN be modified to suit your requirements.
The home desktop market will be the LAST market segment that will fall to Linux.
First will be the servers - we're already seeing this happen.
Second will be the corporate/government desktops - this is just beginning.
Last will be the home market - there are just too many limited-run, proprietary hardware pieces out there that work "good enough" right now. In time I believe they will migrate to Linux. But focusing on the LAST segment and claiming that there's a problem when the OTHER segments are starting to migrate is just silly.
Here's a flash of insight for you.
Not EVERY system is right for EVERY person.
Use whatever works for you.
By the same token, don't tell anyone that their choice is wrong or doesn't work or whatever.
Why? It's a computer OS. It's a tool. Linux works GREAT for me and I'm probably never going to switch. But I don't use my computer as a TV, stereo or game console. For someone who wants those specific features, then a Mac would probably be a better tool.
But it's just a tool. It isn't a threat. You using a Mac does NOT mean that I'm a bad person for using Linux. I run Ubuntu and no, the sound does not work and I'm not going to mess with it because it doesn't interest me.
"It used to be
Are you saying that it is not anymore? It seems rock solid to me. The only time it is ever rebooted is to install a new kernel.
Again, are you saying that Debian is NOT a reliable server? I have 6 Debian boxes and they seem stable and reliable.
Ummm, Ubuntu is based off of Debian.
You left off "recovery CD" which would be Knoppix (again, based off of Debian).
The same thing that Debian has always offered, reliability and stability.
Just because you can find OTHER distributions that have similar features does not mean that Debian lacks those features.
Unless you can show that Debian is less stable/reliable than SuSE, then all you are doing is complaining that different people make different choices in which distribution they run. And how does that rate "insightful"?
This makes you wonder why there isn't a FEDERAL agency establishing standards and tests for voting machines.
Vote for me and I will immediately setup such an agency and make it damn easy for you people to vote me out of office.