If some muntant form of the SSSCA passes, I will personally liquidate some of my savings and stock up on enough hardware to last me several years and perhaps sell on the black market at great profit to myself. Sure E-machines suck, but Geeks everywhere will be paying top $$$ for them if some form of the SSSCA passes.
That is a better response then I got from my suposed Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). After writing a nice polite letter about the dangers of both the DMCA and the SSSCA, I got a response about how she supported digital signatures for EShopping, "Way to go Kay !". I will not be voting for her in the future, unless she (or the Interns who answer her mail) starts showing she has a clue about the issues at hand. I have wriiten back, I included a copy of my original letter and her response, and advised her to be more careful in the future about responding to letters, as my letter and her response where completely unrelated. I further stated, based on this incident, that I doubted her abilty to properly represent me on matters that were important to me. I have as yet to receive a response.
This begs the question of why didn't Apple do this ? Certainly this would have been easier that building Aqua from scratch. Perhaps building on the X Windows foundation wouldn't be a bad idea. The Windows Manager could be designed along the lines of Rox, which goes along way towards hiding Linux from the user. Windows user seem to like an extra level of hand holding, so one would have to write a few extra programs. For example, a general purpose program installer (GPIP) which could handle *.rpm, *.deb and *.gz, so all the user would have to do is download the program to the desktop and click on it, the GPIP would take over, ask for the root password, figure out what needed to happen and do it. Programs designed to work with this Window Manager would would even be easier, have them install in the users home directory, so no root access is required. Maybe setup a cron job which backs up the users home folder and/etc, everynight and stores the last 5 days worth, so if the user does something stupid, they can run the restore program which will show the last 5 backups and restore the one the user selects, solving most of the "It worked yesterday" issues.
First, I feel vindicated because of the flames I have recieved in the last few weeks concerning Linux on the Desktop. For all of you who flamed me all I have say is "See I'm not the only one who thinks so!"
Second, I wonder if it might not be profitable for one of the big OEM houses, such as Dell, IBM or HP, to pull with Linux, what Apple did with BSD. Which is to build a clean stripped version of Linux and then drop in a proprietary X Windows replacement. I won't go into why they wouldn't do this (Wrath of Microsoft) or shouldn't do it (profitablility, Wrath of FSF), but are there any good reasons to do it? Other questions to consider; Could they get NVidia or ATI to help them write video drivers? Could they get Mozilla or Star/Open Office ported? How hard would it be to develope or port things like a DvD player, MP3/CD player, Video player, DvD/CD burning software? Would they need to make it availble across thier entire line, or just one system type, where hardware could be tightly controled? Food for thought.
Do you run X on the 486... probably not.. if you do a full install of redhat 7.2 and run x, your looking at 2.8 gig install, and running x, the system resources are going to be real similar...
This is true a full install of Redhat 7.1 is big, but who says you have to do a full install. A minimal install, including X Windows can be done in less than 500 MB, with little effort. If you go with Debian, I think you can get it under 300 MB. I also beleive there are mini distributions of Linux that do X Windows in 50 to 100 MB. It is really just a matter of what you need as opposed to what you want.
He should not do this, this will only make the courts mad, because he is spitting in the face of the law. Instead, he should get a Lawyer to write a nice polite letter stating first, Nintendo has no right to demand nor confiscate the devices, only the Federal government can do so with the proper court order. Second, the devices are legal because they have at least one legal use, ie making legal backup copies of games, which is allowed under "Fair Use". The DMCA does not specificaly eliminate "Fair Use" (I could be wrong, maybe, it does specificaly eliminate "Fair Use"). This also provides Researchers a method of discovering new uses for the product, because new uses may have a greater benifit. Because this has not happened yet does not mean it is not possible, attempting to enforce the DMCA in this manner stifles creativity and inovation. Recently the RIAA has backed down from a similar case stating it was not the intent of the RIAA nor the DMCA to suppress research nor stifle inovation. The Research part of this maybe a stretch, but a good Lawyer could make it work.
I agree with you, but get ready for some flames, Windows users get mad when you suggest they paid $189 dollars for something they could have gotten for free.
I know there is a perl script ruuning around that downloads TV listings from the TV guide website. Perhaps you could write another script which, once the listing is downloaded, it would grep for the shows you wanted, then setup an at job to record at the proper time. If you wanted to, I imagine it would not be too difficult to slap a Tk front end on it to make it easy to use.
The question at hand isn't "Why is Linux hard to install ?" but "Why isn't Windows easy to install ?". Condsider this, Linux was developed by a group of volunteers, sure RedHat and some others have spent real money on its development, but that amount is trival compared to the billions of dollars Microsoft has spent on Windows. Linux can be had for free or nearly free ($2.95 from CheapBytes), Windows, unless you are pirating your copy, costs money, even an upgrade costs $89. Windows by all rights should be light years ahead of Linux and it is not. Linux improves by leaps and bounds every year, while each version of Windows is only slightly better than the last, but for some reason always requires me to upgrade my processor, RAM and Harddrive for it to work decently.
when it askz when you \x/ant to reboot after detecting/installing hardware, say 'NO',
I am aware you can do that, however it is not wise to do it that way. When you install all the drivers in a wad like that, if something goes wrong, you have no idea what driver was the problem. Do them one at a time, lets you resolve issues one at a time.
It is also not always possible, have you ever tried to install an AGP video cards driver into an NT box before installing the service pack ? NT didn't support AGP out of box and requires at least SP 2 or 3 and the motherboard chipset drivers, before you could install the video drivers for an AGP card. USB support under 95 also required the motherboard drivers be installed and active.
Besides this doesn't make a reinstall any easier, maybe for someone who has done it a few times, but a new user is going have difficulties, especially in light of those pesky little exeptions.
See this is what I am talking about. This has been my experience as well. While Linux has improved by leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, Windows only gets slightly better with each new version. While Linux isn't perfect, neither is Windows. Linux may in fact be difficult to install, but so is Windows.
Linux is free and was developed largely by volunteers. Even if you count all the money that all the Linux vendors have poured into it development, it is still microscopic compared to what Microsoft spends on Windows. So Linux isn't perfect, I'd say there was a good reason for it. What is Windows excuse ?
it's pretty much a foregone conclusion you'll have to go fuck around with some bullshit with a Linux install
Really, I don't seem to have any problems installing Linux. With the exception of my DvD player, all my hardware is detected and installed by RedHat 7.2, that includes my dual processor Athlon board, my GeForce 3 and my SoundBlaster Live.But then this thread isn't really about how difficult it is to install Linux, but rather, how difficult it is to install Windows. Your remark that Windows "Just Works" is wrong. If Windows "Just Works" why does IDG books make millions of dollars a year on the "For Dummies" Books ? Why is Microsofts knowledge base filled with thousands of articles about fixing installation problems ? and why do hundreds of thousands of Phone Techs make thier living each year helping people reinstall Windows ? The answers to all those questions is simple, Windows is not as easy to install as you all say it is.
If Windows is easy then why does Microsoft have a Tech Support Line ? If all one has to do is put the CD in and reboot, they can print that on the CD label and nobody would ever call in. In reality however it doesn't work that way and you know it. Certainly Linux is hard for someone who has never used, but so is Windows. The fact that you use the monitor referance, shows you have not used Linux is some time or you would know that Linux is pretty good at figuring that stuff out for you during installation. Even on the off chance you do have to configure it manually, all the info you need is printed in the monitor manual and more than likely on the makers website. My point is not neccessarily that Linux is easy to install, but that Windows isn't either. If you don't believe me, goto Microsofts knowledge base and look around, there are thousands of articles discussing the various problems that can occur during an install. Goto Dells support site and look at what they have to say about reinstalls. It is only easy if you have done it a few times.
btw, I can't believe you kiss your mother with that mouth.
If installing and configuring Windows is so easy why do so many people call into Tech Support for help doing it ? People don't get stuck on setup.exe, they call in when they get to the desktop and their video would do nothing but 640x480, no sound and they can't use thier modem. The core of my argument isn't that Linux is neccessarily easy to install, but that Windows isn't either.
..... Windows supplies drivers based on firmware IDs by the BIOS and the device
And this changes what ? I was simply pointing out that Windows has problems with hardware as well, no big deal, a new ISA NIC costs $14.95, I hear you can get an ISA sound card for about the same.
LOL - All the desktop OEMs share your opionion?
You mean the same OEM houses who keep pushing the Virus magnet that is Windows. I guess thier opinions mean alot too.
Perhaps my example was a little extreme, but it paints an accurate picture. What exactly is wrong with my post ? isn't it true that if Windows does not support a paticular piece of hardware, you must install drivers for it and after each driver is installed, you must reboot the system ? Isn't it true Windows requires a reboot after configuring TCP/IP ? If this is not true, then much has changed with Windows since yesterday.
do you know what takes a few reboots Xconfigurator testing on a new video card!
It takes exactly ZERO reboots to configure X, ctrl-alt-backspace kills the Xserver without rebooting the system. Even if the video card requires a kernel module, modprobe can be used to install and uninstall the modules, again, ZERO reboots required. Linux only requires one reboot, even if what you say is true, XP still requires 2. It also does not mean XP is easier to install than Linux.
I do admit I showed an extreme case, but even 4 or 5 reboots isn't unusal for even a Win2K or WinXP install. My orignal point still stands, on the "Average", Linux is no more difficult to install then Windows is.
I don't seem to have these problems. The RedHat distribution seems to support all my hardware out of the box and all of my hardware is less than a year old. This includes a dual processor Athlon, a GeForce 3 and a Sound Blaster Live. I would have to say the "Average" Linux setup only requires the RedHat CD's as well.
As for your complaint about the SB16 ISA card, I have an old ISA NE2000, made by Realtek, that Windows will not detect period, but installs and works in Linux just fine, all I have to do is tell it what I/O it uses. It sounds to me like six of one, have a dozen of another.
Linux is very ready for the desktop, BESIDES games, Linux does 99% of what everyone uses a computers for. Just because it doesn't suit your purposes does not mean that 10 million other people can't use Linux, it just means you can't.
That is still 4 more reboots than is required to to install Linux. Also I have found when installing Windws it is best to install a driver, then reboot, not install 3 drivers and reboot. The reason for this is because if something goes wrong, you know exactly what driver caused the problem.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until the linux community gets off their asses and makes Linux easy to use for a larger user base [i.e non kernel-hackers] its still going to be a non-desktop OS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux is no harder to install than Windows is. The only reason people think Linux is hard to install is because first they have never done it and second Windows came factory installed.
Of course most you will likely respond with "Whats so hard about installing Windows, boot from the CD and type setup." The problem is unless your system and all your hardware pre dates your version of Windows by at least a year or two, you will have to install drivers, so it goes something like this;
And this is just to get the hardware working, no applications have been installed yet and it does not include downloading and installing updated drivers. Unless you are using an EMachine and doing reinstalls from a restore disk, I don't see how this is easier than installing Linux. As a matter of fact I beleive Windows is more difficult to install than Linux. Contrary to popular belief, installing Linux does not require you to compile a kernel, and most additional software is distributed as binary and what little does require compiling is usually as easy as typing
su -c "./configure && make && make install"
Additionally installing Linux requires only 1 reboot, the only other time you will need to reboot is IF you decide to install a new kernel. I beleive the question should not be, "Why is Linux so hard to install ?", but "Why is Windows so hard to install ?"
Re:Am I the only person who is hesitent about this
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 2
that location better be under control of an independend body!
And what independent body would be better than you. Nobody else in the world has a better reason to keep your personal information a secret than you. Zimran Ahmed of winterspeak.com has the best solution. Instead of letting Microsoft keep my name , address, phone number and credit card number, how about I get a keyboard macro program like Perfect keyboard or RoboType and write a couple of clever macros to fill in spaces for me. Now I have the same functionality, but I only have to worry about someone breaking into my house, which has never happened, and I don't have to worry about someone breaking into Microsofts software, which happens daily.
.Net as a marketing strategy
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First, let's get the myth out of the way..Net is not a product. It's a marketing term,
This is probably the most telling statment of the whole article..Net is not about a new way of using computers, cool technology, security or any of the other things Microsoft is spouting..Net is a buzz word driven marketing push and nothing else. It is not going to solve any problems that have not already been solved, introduce any new technology or bring world peace. Microsoft is going to spend the next several years spending billions of dollars to bring us.Net Notepad,.Net Solitaire and the new and improved.Net Virus.
I capped my karma a few days ago, so feel free to moderate me down, just don't expect me to care.
I agree, money is not speech. If we limited all political contributions to $1000 per year per person and 0$ for organizations. Whose speech is being restricted ? The NRA can still write letters, pay for commercials and members can give speeches. They just can't give money directly to the Republican Party with a wink and a nod.
Slashdot Mirror
If some muntant form of the SSSCA passes, I will personally liquidate some of my savings and stock up on enough hardware to last me several years and perhaps sell on the black market at great profit to myself. Sure E-machines suck, but Geeks everywhere will be paying top $$$ for them if some form of the SSSCA passes.
That is a better response then I got from my suposed Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). After writing a nice polite letter about the dangers of both the DMCA and the SSSCA, I got a response about how she supported digital signatures for EShopping, "Way to go Kay !". I will not be voting for her in the future, unless she (or the Interns who answer her mail) starts showing she has a clue about the issues at hand. I have wriiten back, I included a copy of my original letter and her response, and advised her to be more careful in the future about responding to letters, as my letter and her response where completely unrelated. I further stated, based on this incident, that I doubted her abilty to properly represent me on matters that were important to me. I have as yet to receive a response.
This begs the question of why didn't Apple do this ? Certainly this would have been easier that building Aqua from scratch. Perhaps building on the X Windows foundation wouldn't be a bad idea. The Windows Manager could be designed along the lines of Rox, which goes along way towards hiding Linux from the user. Windows user seem to like an extra level of hand holding, so one would have to write a few extra programs. For example, a general purpose program installer (GPIP) which could handle *.rpm, *.deb and *.gz, so all the user would have to do is download the program to the desktop and click on it, the GPIP would take over, ask for the root password, figure out what needed to happen and do it. Programs designed to work with this Window Manager would would even be easier, have them install in the users home directory, so no root access is required. Maybe setup a cron job which backs up the users home folder and /etc, everynight and stores the last 5 days worth, so if the user does something stupid, they can run the restore program which will show the last 5 backups and restore the one the user selects, solving most of the "It worked yesterday" issues.
First, I feel vindicated because of the flames I have recieved in the last few weeks concerning Linux on the Desktop. For all of you who flamed me all I have say is "See I'm not the only one who thinks so!"
Second, I wonder if it might not be profitable for one of the big OEM houses, such as Dell, IBM or HP, to pull with Linux, what Apple did with BSD. Which is to build a clean stripped version of Linux and then drop in a proprietary X Windows replacement. I won't go into why they wouldn't do this (Wrath of Microsoft) or shouldn't do it (profitablility, Wrath of FSF), but are there any good reasons to do it? Other questions to consider; Could they get NVidia or ATI to help them write video drivers? Could they get Mozilla or Star/Open Office ported? How hard would it be to develope or port things like a DvD player, MP3/CD player, Video player, DvD/CD burning software? Would they need to make it availble across thier entire line, or just one system type, where hardware could be tightly controled? Food for thought.
Do you run X on the 486... probably not.. if you do a full install of redhat 7.2 and run x, your looking at 2.8 gig install, and running x, the system resources are going to be real similar...
This is true a full install of Redhat 7.1 is big, but who says you have to do a full install. A minimal install, including X Windows can be done in less than 500 MB, with little effort. If you go with Debian, I think you can get it under 300 MB. I also beleive there are mini distributions of Linux that do X Windows in 50 to 100 MB. It is really just a matter of what you need as opposed to what you want.
he's just going to ignore them for now.
He should not do this, this will only make the courts mad, because he is spitting in the face of the law. Instead, he should get a Lawyer to write a nice polite letter stating first, Nintendo has no right to demand nor confiscate the devices, only the Federal government can do so with the proper court order. Second, the devices are legal because they have at least one legal use, ie making legal backup copies of games, which is allowed under "Fair Use". The DMCA does not specificaly eliminate "Fair Use" (I could be wrong, maybe, it does specificaly eliminate "Fair Use"). This also provides Researchers a method of discovering new uses for the product, because new uses may have a greater benifit. Because this has not happened yet does not mean it is not possible, attempting to enforce the DMCA in this manner stifles creativity and inovation. Recently the RIAA has backed down from a similar case stating it was not the intent of the RIAA nor the DMCA to suppress research nor stifle inovation. The Research part of this maybe a stretch, but a good Lawyer could make it work.
Why do you think Bill Gates is so rich?
HMM, the words "Illegal Monopoly" come to mind
I agree with you, but get ready for some flames, Windows users get mad when you suggest they paid $189 dollars for something they could have gotten for free.
record from tv (works, but no automated TV-guide)
I know there is a perl script ruuning around that downloads TV listings from the TV guide website. Perhaps you could write another script which, once the listing is downloaded, it would grep for the shows you wanted, then setup an at job to record at the proper time. If you wanted to, I imagine it would not be too difficult to slap a Tk front end on it to make it easy to use.
The question at hand isn't "Why is Linux hard to install ?" but "Why isn't Windows easy to install ?". Condsider this, Linux was developed by a group of volunteers, sure RedHat and some others have spent real money on its development, but that amount is trival compared to the billions of dollars Microsoft has spent on Windows. Linux can be had for free or nearly free ($2.95 from CheapBytes), Windows, unless you are pirating your copy, costs money, even an upgrade costs $89. Windows by all rights should be light years ahead of Linux and it is not. Linux improves by leaps and bounds every year, while each version of Windows is only slightly better than the last, but for some reason always requires me to upgrade my processor, RAM and Harddrive for it to work decently.
when it askz when you \x/ant to reboot after detecting/installing hardware, say 'NO',
I am aware you can do that, however it is not wise to do it that way. When you install all the drivers in a wad like that, if something goes wrong, you have no idea what driver was the problem. Do them one at a time, lets you resolve issues one at a time.
It is also not always possible, have you ever tried to install an AGP video cards driver into an NT box before installing the service pack ? NT didn't support AGP out of box and requires at least SP 2 or 3 and the motherboard chipset drivers, before you could install the video drivers for an AGP card. USB support under 95 also required the motherboard drivers be installed and active.
Besides this doesn't make a reinstall any easier, maybe for someone who has done it a few times, but a new user is going have difficulties, especially in light of those pesky little exeptions.
See this is what I am talking about. This has been my experience as well. While Linux has improved by leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, Windows only gets slightly better with each new version. While Linux isn't perfect, neither is Windows. Linux may in fact be difficult to install, but so is Windows.
Linux is free and was developed largely by volunteers. Even if you count all the money that all the Linux vendors have poured into it development, it is still microscopic compared to what Microsoft spends on Windows. So Linux isn't perfect, I'd say there was a good reason for it. What is Windows excuse ?
it's pretty much a foregone conclusion you'll have to go fuck around with some bullshit with a Linux install
Really, I don't seem to have any problems installing Linux. With the exception of my DvD player, all my hardware is detected and installed by RedHat 7.2, that includes my dual processor Athlon board, my GeForce 3 and my SoundBlaster Live.But then this thread isn't really about how difficult it is to install Linux, but rather, how difficult it is to install Windows. Your remark that Windows "Just Works" is wrong. If Windows "Just Works" why does IDG books make millions of dollars a year on the "For Dummies" Books ? Why is Microsofts knowledge base filled with thousands of articles about fixing installation problems ? and why do hundreds of thousands of Phone Techs make thier living each year helping people reinstall Windows ? The answers to all those questions is simple, Windows is not as easy to install as you all say it is.
If Windows is easy then why does Microsoft have a Tech Support Line ? If all one has to do is put the CD in and reboot, they can print that on the CD label and nobody would ever call in. In reality however it doesn't work that way and you know it. Certainly Linux is hard for someone who has never used, but so is Windows. The fact that you use the monitor referance, shows you have not used Linux is some time or you would know that Linux is pretty good at figuring that stuff out for you during installation. Even on the off chance you do have to configure it manually, all the info you need is printed in the monitor manual and more than likely on the makers website. My point is not neccessarily that Linux is easy to install, but that Windows isn't either. If you don't believe me, goto Microsofts knowledge base and look around, there are thousands of articles discussing the various problems that can occur during an install. Goto Dells support site and look at what they have to say about reinstalls. It is only easy if you have done it a few times.
btw, I can't believe you kiss your mother with that mouth.
If installing and configuring Windows is so easy why do so many people call into Tech Support for help doing it ? People don't get stuck on setup.exe, they call in when they get to the desktop and their video would do nothing but 640x480, no sound and they can't use thier modem. The core of my argument isn't that Linux is neccessarily easy to install, but that Windows isn't either.
And this changes what ? I was simply pointing out that Windows has problems with hardware as well, no big deal, a new ISA NIC costs $14.95, I hear you can get an ISA sound card for about the same.
LOL - All the desktop OEMs share your opionion?
You mean the same OEM houses who keep pushing the Virus magnet that is Windows. I guess thier opinions mean alot too.
Perhaps my example was a little extreme, but it paints an accurate picture. What exactly is wrong with my post ? isn't it true that if Windows does not support a paticular piece of hardware, you must install drivers for it and after each driver is installed, you must reboot the system ? Isn't it true Windows requires a reboot after configuring TCP/IP ? If this is not true, then much has changed with Windows since yesterday.
do you know what takes a few reboots Xconfigurator testing on a new video card!
It takes exactly ZERO reboots to configure X, ctrl-alt-backspace kills the Xserver without rebooting the system. Even if the video card requires a kernel module, modprobe can be used to install and uninstall the modules, again, ZERO reboots required. Linux only requires one reboot, even if what you say is true, XP still requires 2. It also does not mean XP is easier to install than Linux.
I do admit I showed an extreme case, but even 4 or 5 reboots isn't unusal for even a Win2K or WinXP install. My orignal point still stands, on the "Average", Linux is no more difficult to install then Windows is.
I don't seem to have these problems. The RedHat distribution seems to support all my hardware out of the box and all of my hardware is less than a year old. This includes a dual processor Athlon, a GeForce 3 and a Sound Blaster Live. I would have to say the "Average" Linux setup only requires the RedHat CD's as well.
As for your complaint about the SB16 ISA card, I have an old ISA NE2000, made by Realtek, that Windows will not detect period, but installs and works in Linux just fine, all I have to do is tell it what I/O it uses. It sounds to me like six of one, have a dozen of another.
Linux is very ready for the desktop, BESIDES games, Linux does 99% of what everyone uses a computers for. Just because it doesn't suit your purposes does not mean that 10 million other people can't use Linux, it just means you can't.
That is still 4 more reboots than is required to to install Linux. Also I have found when installing Windws it is best to install a driver, then reboot, not install 3 drivers and reboot. The reason for this is because if something goes wrong, you know exactly what driver caused the problem.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until the linux community gets off their asses and makes Linux easy to use for a larger user base [i.e non kernel-hackers] its still going to be a non-desktop OS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux is no harder to install than Windows is. The only reason people think Linux is hard to install is because first they have never done it and second Windows came factory installed.
Of course most you will likely respond with "Whats so hard about installing Windows, boot from the CD and type setup." The problem is unless your system and all your hardware pre dates your version of Windows by at least a year or two, you will have to install drivers, so it goes something like this;
Boot from CD and type setup (2 reboots)
install Motherboard chipset drivers (1 reboot)
install video drivers (1 reboot)
install mouse software (1 reboot)
install sound drivers (1 reboot)
install modem drivers (1 reboot)
configure modem (1 reboot)
install network card drivers (1 reboot)
configure network card (1 reboot)
install DvD player (1 reboot)
install CDRW software (1 reboot)
install printer drivers (1 reboot)
install scanner software (1 reboot)
install webcam software (1 reboot)
And this is just to get the hardware working, no applications have been installed yet and it does not include downloading and installing updated drivers. Unless you are using an EMachine and doing reinstalls from a restore disk, I don't see how this is easier than installing Linux. As a matter of fact I beleive Windows is more difficult to install than Linux. Contrary to popular belief, installing Linux does not require you to compile a kernel, and most additional software is distributed as binary and what little does require compiling is usually as easy as typing
su -c "./configure && make && make install"
Additionally installing Linux requires only 1 reboot, the only other time you will need to reboot is IF you decide to install a new kernel. I beleive the question should not be, "Why is Linux so hard to install ?", but "Why is Windows so hard to install ?"
that location better be under control of an independend body!
And what independent body would be better than you. Nobody else in the world has a better reason to keep your personal information a secret than you. Zimran Ahmed of winterspeak.com has the best solution. Instead of letting Microsoft keep my name , address, phone number and credit card number, how about I get a keyboard macro program like Perfect keyboard or RoboType and write a couple of clever macros to fill in spaces for me. Now I have the same functionality, but I only have to worry about someone breaking into my house, which has never happened, and I don't have to worry about someone breaking into Microsofts software, which happens daily.
First, let's get the myth out of the way. .Net is not a product. It's a marketing term,
This is probably the most telling statment of the whole article. .Net is not about a new way of using computers, cool technology, security or any of the other things Microsoft is spouting. .Net is a buzz word driven marketing push and nothing else. It is not going to solve any problems that have not already been solved, introduce any new technology or bring world peace. Microsoft is going to spend the next several years spending billions of dollars to bring us .Net Notepad, .Net Solitaire and the new and improved .Net Virus.
I capped my karma a few days ago, so feel free to moderate me down, just don't expect me to care.
I agree, money is not speech. If we limited all political contributions to $1000 per year per person and 0$ for organizations. Whose speech is being restricted ? The NRA can still write letters, pay for commercials and members can give speeches. They just can't give money directly to the Republican Party with a wink and a nod.