I really haven't noticed Windows/Mac users stereotyping Linux users, but maybe I'm reading the wrong sites.
Yes, you have been reading the wrong sites. The obvious example is on slashdot, indeed in this very article. But also there are numerous disparaging remarks made on windows sites like microsoft.com, c|net, etc. I wonder what OS they use?
But Windows and Mac Users are not the only people to react negatively to what they see as the Linux hype. BSD Users can be nasty too. In fact I seem to recall you used not to be allowed to connect your IRC server to any of the IRC networks if you were using Linux instead of BSD, for various stated reasons, but mainly because the BSD guys did not like linux.
runas is nice, but it really does not work as advertised. A lot of programs don't seem to work properly using runas, and pretty much no installer will (especially the 99% that require a reboot).
Besides, runas is only in windows 2000. It is not in NT4, or any other windows (unless maybe it is in XP). It is, in my opinion, too little, too late. People bitched about not being able to use Windows like unix, running as an unprivileged user and using su or sudo on the rare occasions when they were doing something (like installing) that needed administrative privileges. So microsoft made runas, which pretends it is su, but really isn't as good a solution, because it does not really work.
5) My largest gripe by a mile with Mozilla has to be this - this is non-platform-specific. I've had this happen on Mac OS X, Red Hat Linux, and Windows 98, 2000, and XP. The first instance of the browser I open allows me to type in form fields and type in the URL bar. Open up a second instance of the browser, and you can't type anywhere. My mouse then becomes the only input I have with the screen. I have to completely close mozilla, mail client and all, and restart it to be able to type in the form fields and url bar again. WTF? Oh, and sometimes when I look in the task manager under windows after completely thinking I closed mozilla, I'll still see mozilla.exe running, and have to kill it from the process manager in windows 2000. I can't verify if this happens with a mac or linux, but I do have the typing problems there as well. Isn't this a major thing that other people should have noticed?
I have noticed that, too, and it indeed happened on linux and windows, at least, with every version of Mozilla I have tried. It seems to be somewhat random (doesn't happen all the time), but if it does happen, usually it is when I open new instances, and killing the process somehow (usually by exiting) usually works. Someone mentioned this is a reported bug...
I have found it annoying, but not as annoying as Microsoft products tend to be, and the features Mozilla has are worth a few quirks; not the least the added security and the better license.
And it is a solid product, too. I had noticed that while MSOffice and MSIE for Mac were lighter and better than the Windows versions, Appleworks was considerably less bloated and had a more friendly install (for instance not using a lot of Extensions like MSOffice). When Apps can refrain from using Extensions, it is easier to get rid of them and they are less likely to affect the overall system by the simple act of their installation. MSOffice installed more extensions than any other MacOS App I tried.
Winehq is indeed a place to find obvious whining about undocumented api's. One link was here. Another is here.
Besides that, this reminds me there are indeed numbers of books documenting some of the previously undocumented API's, written by developers outside microsoft who have figured some of them out.
Microsoft has, indeed admitted in open court that:
1) There are hidden API's
2) They refuse to disclose them as they feel it will negate a competitive advantage such nondisclosures afford them.
As for URL's, for starters,/. had an article on this recently, though salon seems to have broken the referenced link and it has been tough tracking it down. I believe it is cached here.
The fact MS API's are not documented is better documented than that, however. One should probably peruse the findings of fact. There was also an article on ZDnet (surprisingly) on this as well.
For the paranoid, I am sure a little more diligence would indeed turn up the very court documents in which the quotes were made, but really, the fact Microsoft hides code from developers has been discussed ad nauseum in the press ever since DOS, and has not only never been contested by Microsoft, rather the reverse, Microsoft has always said this is a necessary part of its business strategy.
The problem with invading North Korea now is much the same as it was the first time, that we would in reality end up fighting China. True we would not, in all likelihood be fighting China and Russia, but China might be enough.
Though our military scoffs at their navy and air force, and their missile systems are said to be inferior, China has many times more ground troops than the US, and this would invite ground war. Plus, though they are supposed to have missiles that are worse than ours, that does not mean they could not hit us with nuclear warheads if they wanted to.
I woudl have to say we have superior technology and this might help in a war against China, but iot would be bloody, and costly, and probably accomplish nothing.
You have a point. In fact, I thought early on in my Linux adventures it would be easier to deal with Mandrake and Redhat as they use RPM's and are often very much up-to-date, which yields good hardware support. I still think that of GUI installers Mandrake's is the best in the business, and that includes MacOS, Solaris, and Windows.
However, I soon found rpm is not all it was cracked up to be. The main problem tended to be with projects which used multiple rpm's and had nests of screwey dependencies (two of my most horrible nightmares came from trying to upgrade Enlightenment and KDE). After messing around with this a lot, I realized I was probably spending more time getting rpm's to play nice than it would take to compile, and not rerceiving the benefit of my hardware.
It was then that I started doing mroe compiles, and movede to Slackware. The thing is, ever since make, things are much simpler. For many programs, you simply have to download your tarball, extract it in some directory, then
./configure && make && make install
It isn't that easy all the time, for you do have to make sure you have dependencies installed, but you have to do that with rpm, too. Besides, a good configure script and/or program documentation will tell you that and even how to get it. The better the configure script, the better the makefiles, and the better the makefiles, the more likely it is you will have a happy day.
One might say that better rpm's would have reduced my rpm headaches. But when you are taking an unmodified system from one release of a distro and upgrading it with the next release's rpm's, you'd think it would not be such a hassle and require lots of shoehorning.
Essentially, I have found Slackware is easier to deal with for me than Redhat or Mandrake, though I applaud their efforts. I ultimately plan to go into LFS or at least Sourceror on my next rig, though I admit it takes time to compile some of the larger stuff.
Granted, it's really foolish not to include even a minimal kernel and binary build tools to compile everything else, but there is nothing in the GPL that says you aren't allowed to be a fool.
Actually, it is entirely possible to build a whole linux distro without the kernel and build tools of teh distro you are building, so long as you have the source, space on disk, and time. Mostly time. This is, in fact, the premise of Linux From Scratch. Yes, you do need a working system, but it can be any system with a compiler and working kernel/libraries. You build the basic binaries (kernel, build tools, etc) and then boot into your new system, then build the rest. As long as the source is intact, it should be possible to do this with UnitedLinux. If the makefiles are there, it should be reasonably trivial.
Okay, so for ages now, free software advocates have pointed out Micorosft's claim that GPL software must be distributed free as in beer is false. In fact, if someone (like HP recently, and now UnitedLinux) wants to release GPL software and charge loads of cash ($3000 in HP's case) it is just fine and dandy, and legal according to the GPL, so long as source is distributed with binaries.
Yet, lo and behold, here a company releases a linux distribution which will tie together several others, and releases source for free, but charges for the binaries, including support with the package, and is immediately lambasted by this site and several who claim to represent the "open source community." Of course, this plays right into the hands of those who claim all the open source people want is software for free, ergo linux is NOT a viable market. Sadly, there seems to be more and more ammo for this insidious view.
First off, I think we should remember the story specifically states the original distributions (Caldera, Conectiva, Turbolinux, SUSE, et al.) will not necessarily cease to be, in fact they will probably go on, probably in their current form, e.g. downloadable, available on Cheapbytes, etc. These distributions would contain UnitedLinux at their core, with unspecified value added changes. It is reasonable to assume applications written for these would work on UnitedLinux, unless some relevant library were changed, given the kernel, libs, and filesystem would be close if not identical.
It has been pointed out that a real developer will have no trouble compiling binaries, but heck, honestly, real developers are used to paying for tools and even os software. Usually OS vendors make it easier for developers to get hold of betas and even finished copies. For instance, Apple tends to give OS copies away at dev conferences and sell the OS cheaper to developers. MSDN cost about $1200 a year last I checked and included with such subscription a copy of every OS they sell, mailed to you in nice little CD packages. If developers will pay that for Windows, how much are they willing to pay for a real OS?
Most importantly, there has been no mention of how much this new linux distro will cost. If you buy Mandrake or Redhat outright, they cost anywhere from $25 to $2000+ depending on support, bundled commercial apps, etc. Obviously they are also available for free, without support, by download. It is possible we are getting up in arms about a distro with a similar pricing scheme, though without the "free download." Besides, even if they did have free downloads, who would pay for the hosting? In the real world, providing such things cost money, you know. In any event, it is possible, even likely, that whatever the cost there will be a low-priced version for developers, and unless they copyright the layout of the CD as OpenBSD rightly does (I am certainly agreeing with Theo here...), there will be versions on cheapbytes in approximately 5 minutes.
I will admit I myself am a cheap bastard and a major reason I like linux us its freedom (as in Beer) and because of the freedom in licensing which means I don't have to worry about software police. I also have not contributed a line of code to linux, and though I would like to, it is unlikely as I am not the best programmer in the world. But I certainly think this wonderful system will not enjoy the success it has had of late if there is this kind of backlash to all commercial efforts in this field.
Folks, a lot of companies are pouring money into this, and they are in business to make money. A lot of development hours, both on and off record (off record meaning people working on linux while they are being paid to do something else...) are being shouldered by companies who have been, if you haven't been following the stock market for three years, struggling. Now here we have an effort to help linux on several fronts, by making a new commercially viable product, by unifying disparate distributions, and it is even in keeping with the spirit and letter of the GPL, and you tear it down because you can't download free copies. For shame!
I was disturbed to read in the report that DoD is now suspended from using software that has not been checked by the NSA. I hope that this applies to networking and web hosting software only . . . and that Mitre is on the task (as an NSA contractor) to test Linux and make sure it gets a presence soon in that front.
Actually in most states with sodomy laws it is. "Sodomy" (almost?) never carries a direct technical definition in the law, and tends to be defined as any "unnatural act." In some cases, this has led to prosecution of those who even dared request oral sex. For having endured this act (of being propositioned by her husband), Charlie Chaplin's wife was granted a divorce and a settlement of $250,000.
Granted, these laws are usually used to prosecute gays, such as a lesbian in Virginia (IIRC) and a couple in Houston, but it can just as easily be used against heterosexuals who offend authority in some way.
A case in point is Hugh Grant, who was not arrested for soliciting prostitution, but instead for commmitting "lewd and unnatural acts in public." Granted, he was only in public because a police officer followed him to the private place in which he was committing the acts (like the gay men in houston, who were in their own bedroom but were considered "in public" because police officers were peeking in the window).
an argument can be made that these actions are analogous to war, or to an execution.
Not really. The difference of course is that war and executions are sanctioned by society, and require a form of due process before initiation. IIRC, the Bible directly speaks to vengeance killing (which is what this amounts to, a form of vigilantism) and it was not sanctioned.
By passing judgement on their own and acting outside of the normal structure of law, these people are essentially violating the basic premises upon which the Bible is based.
As tiresome as a republics claims to a monopoly on 'good' can be (and lord knows we see enough of that), the only other alternative at the time is a group that claims a monopoly on 'evil', which can't possibly be any better.
This made me think of the Linux vs Microsoft argument. Come to think of it, Microsoft does seem to claim evil as its intellectual property...
I am no fan of Pinochet, but when you consider there were massive demonstrations in favour of him, and against his trial in Europe, and a hero's welcome when he was returned, it becomes plausible some Chileans actually like him. Granted, it is possible these were all staged, and people were paid to celebrate in what we believe to be a relatively poor and unfree country, but this was believed to be the case in Nazi Germany, and was proven wrong. There actually were ordinary citizens in direct favour of the oppressive dictatorship.
In freer and ostensibly democratic societies this seems unconcionable to the average person, but it appears to be the case in such places.
I can name a few which were purposefully broken by new versions of Windows and Service Packs. For instance: RealPlayer, Lotus Notes, and Lotus Domino. In fact, Microsoft was recently caught saying they would continue to ensure current versions of RealPlayer would not work with newer versions of Windows. Of course you will say that these applications work fine in Windows, maybe even that you use them in Windows. But the reason you can use them now is that the creators of the applications changed them so they would work with Windows, which does not seem to deter Microsoft's attempts to use dirty tricks and undocumented API's (as documented in the findings of fact you did not read) to trip up competitors.
Ah, but you see if the product is not at least invented no patent can exist, and if the product is not developed, no profit can be made from owning the patent.
That may have been true before, but due to the litiguous behaviour of the late 20th and early 21st century, it is now possible to obtain profits without the expense of actually developing technology (by patenting widely used techniques then suing those who utilize them as a means of profit), and indeed without taking the trouble to invent the technology in the first place.
That this has now become the main source of revenue for a number of companies (like British Telecom and Rambus), and indeed is the sole business plan and means of existence of a number of others is indicative of the problem as it stands today. The fact a number of companies now exist as consultancies to such companies, paid to dig through records to find patents the company owns which might bring fruitful lawsuits (which is how British Telecom found out they'd "invented hyperlinks") shows how lucrative this practice has become. It is this sort of parasitic practice, nurtured by the status quo, which serves to undermine the original purpose of patent law and inflame the opposition you see here.
Compaq actually did produce a replacement for the program manager; IIRC it was called Tabworks. The look and feel was a set of folders in a binder with coloured and collated tabs (representing groups) and on each one you created buttons to represent programs. It messed up a lot of stuff, actually, and reduced the efficiency of your computer by bloat and overhead, not to mention it was unstable and prone to corruption.
Packard Bell made something even worse which created a 3d virtual office the user had to walk around in to find things to do on the computer. It was a bloody mess.
Perhaps not all Compaqs had the offending feature. IIRC it was something their home PC's had.
Forget Outlook. If rules are what you are after, and scoring, and colouring, sylpheed-claws is the answer. These features may end up in the main sylpheed, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I really haven't noticed Windows/Mac users stereotyping Linux users, but maybe I'm reading the wrong sites.
Yes, you have been reading the wrong sites. The obvious example is on slashdot, indeed in this very article. But also there are numerous disparaging remarks made on windows sites like microsoft.com, c|net, etc. I wonder what OS they use?
But Windows and Mac Users are not the only people to react negatively to what they see as the Linux hype. BSD Users can be nasty too. In fact I seem to recall you used not to be allowed to connect your IRC server to any of the IRC networks if you were using Linux instead of BSD, for various stated reasons, but mainly because the BSD guys did not like linux.
runas is nice, but it really does not work as advertised. A lot of programs don't seem to work properly using runas, and pretty much no installer will (especially the 99% that require a reboot).
Besides, runas is only in windows 2000. It is not in NT4, or any other windows (unless maybe it is in XP). It is, in my opinion, too little, too late. People bitched about not being able to use Windows like unix, running as an unprivileged user and using su or sudo on the rare occasions when they were doing something (like installing) that needed administrative privileges. So microsoft made runas, which pretends it is su, but really isn't as good a solution, because it does not really work.
Nobody likes China's current political system.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far... I'd imagine a few old guarders up in Beijing like it very well.
5) My largest gripe by a mile with Mozilla has to be this - this is non-platform-specific. I've had this happen on Mac OS X, Red Hat Linux, and Windows 98, 2000, and XP. The first instance of the browser I open allows me to type in form fields and type in the URL bar. Open up a second instance of the browser, and you can't type anywhere. My mouse then becomes the only input I have with the screen. I have to completely close mozilla, mail client and all, and restart it to be able to type in the form fields and url bar again. WTF? Oh, and sometimes when I look in the task manager under windows after completely thinking I closed mozilla, I'll still see mozilla.exe running, and have to kill it from the process manager in windows 2000. I can't verify if this happens with a mac or linux, but I do have the typing problems there as well. Isn't this a major thing that other people should have noticed?
I have noticed that, too, and it indeed happened on linux and windows, at least, with every version of Mozilla I have tried. It seems to be somewhat random (doesn't happen all the time), but if it does happen, usually it is when I open new instances, and killing the process somehow (usually by exiting) usually works. Someone mentioned this is a reported bug...
I have found it annoying, but not as annoying as Microsoft products tend to be, and the features Mozilla has are worth a few quirks; not the least the added security and the better license.
Apple Works does ship with every Mac.
And it is a solid product, too. I had noticed that while MSOffice and MSIE for Mac were lighter and better than the Windows versions, Appleworks was considerably less bloated and had a more friendly install (for instance not using a lot of Extensions like MSOffice). When Apps can refrain from using Extensions, it is easier to get rid of them and they are less likely to affect the overall system by the simple act of their installation. MSOffice installed more extensions than any other MacOS App I tried.
Nah. He didn't plug guns in the post or talk about "serious hacking."
Winehq is indeed a place to find obvious whining about undocumented api's. One link was here. Another is here.
Besides that, this reminds me there are indeed numbers of books documenting some of the previously undocumented API's, written by developers outside microsoft who have figured some of them out.
Microsoft has, indeed admitted in open court that:
1) There are hidden API's
2) They refuse to disclose them as they feel it will negate a competitive advantage such nondisclosures afford them.
As for URL's, for starters, /. had an article on this recently, though salon seems to have broken the referenced link and it has been tough tracking it down. I believe it is cached here.
The fact MS API's are not documented is better documented than that, however. One should probably peruse the findings of fact. There was also an article on ZDnet (surprisingly) on this as well.
I found a Microsoft KB Article on undocumented API's as well as a perl tool pertaining to them with just a cursory google.
For the paranoid, I am sure a little more diligence would indeed turn up the very court documents in which the quotes were made, but really, the fact Microsoft hides code from developers has been discussed ad nauseum in the press ever since DOS, and has not only never been contested by Microsoft, rather the reverse, Microsoft has always said this is a necessary part of its business strategy.
C|Net review *was* pretty pathetic though.
How do they stay in business?
Easy.
1) Review Open Source projects badly, insert FUD, to piss off /. readers.
2)Sell Advertising (banner ads and popups)
3) Profit.
The problem with invading North Korea now is much the same as it was the first time, that we would in reality end up fighting China. True we would not, in all likelihood be fighting China and Russia, but China might be enough.
Though our military scoffs at their navy and air force, and their missile systems are said to be inferior, China has many times more ground troops than the US, and this would invite ground war. Plus, though they are supposed to have missiles that are worse than ours, that does not mean they could not hit us with nuclear warheads if they wanted to.
I woudl have to say we have superior technology and this might help in a war against China, but iot would be bloody, and costly, and probably accomplish nothing.
You have a point. In fact, I thought early on in my Linux adventures it would be easier to deal with Mandrake and Redhat as they use RPM's and are often very much up-to-date, which yields good hardware support. I still think that of GUI installers Mandrake's is the best in the business, and that includes MacOS, Solaris, and Windows.
However, I soon found rpm is not all it was cracked up to be. The main problem tended to be with projects which used multiple rpm's and had nests of screwey dependencies (two of my most horrible nightmares came from trying to upgrade Enlightenment and KDE). After messing around with this a lot, I realized I was probably spending more time getting rpm's to play nice than it would take to compile, and not rerceiving the benefit of my hardware.
It was then that I started doing mroe compiles, and movede to Slackware. The thing is, ever since make, things are much simpler. For many programs, you simply have to download your tarball, extract it in some directory, then
./configure && make && make install
It isn't that easy all the time, for you do have to make sure you have dependencies installed, but you have to do that with rpm, too. Besides, a good configure script and/or program documentation will tell you that and even how to get it. The better the configure script, the better the makefiles, and the better the makefiles, the more likely it is you will have a happy day.
One might say that better rpm's would have reduced my rpm headaches. But when you are taking an unmodified system from one release of a distro and upgrading it with the next release's rpm's, you'd think it would not be such a hassle and require lots of shoehorning.
Essentially, I have found Slackware is easier to deal with for me than Redhat or Mandrake, though I applaud their efforts. I ultimately plan to go into LFS or at least Sourceror on my next rig, though I admit it takes time to compile some of the larger stuff.
They think Linux is an escort.
And here I thought it was a go-cart built by hippies :)
Riiight.. and I am sure you will have it ready for us tomorrow... with source posted. :P
Granted, it's really foolish not to include even a minimal kernel and binary build tools to compile everything else, but there is nothing in the GPL that says you aren't allowed to be a fool.
Actually, it is entirely possible to build a whole linux distro without the kernel and build tools of teh distro you are building, so long as you have the source, space on disk, and time. Mostly time. This is, in fact, the premise of Linux From Scratch. Yes, you do need a working system, but it can be any system with a compiler and working kernel/libraries. You build the basic binaries (kernel, build tools, etc) and then boot into your new system, then build the rest. As long as the source is intact, it should be possible to do this with UnitedLinux. If the makefiles are there, it should be reasonably trivial.
Okay, so for ages now, free software advocates have pointed out Micorosft's claim that GPL software must be distributed free as in beer is false. In fact, if someone (like HP recently, and now UnitedLinux) wants to release GPL software and charge loads of cash ($3000 in HP's case) it is just fine and dandy, and legal according to the GPL, so long as source is distributed with binaries.
Yet, lo and behold, here a company releases a linux distribution which will tie together several others, and releases source for free, but charges for the binaries, including support with the package, and is immediately lambasted by this site and several who claim to represent the "open source community." Of course, this plays right into the hands of those who claim all the open source people want is software for free, ergo linux is NOT a viable market. Sadly, there seems to be more and more ammo for this insidious view.
First off, I think we should remember the story specifically states the original distributions (Caldera, Conectiva, Turbolinux, SUSE, et al.) will not necessarily cease to be, in fact they will probably go on, probably in their current form, e.g. downloadable, available on Cheapbytes, etc. These distributions would contain UnitedLinux at their core, with unspecified value added changes. It is reasonable to assume applications written for these would work on UnitedLinux, unless some relevant library were changed, given the kernel, libs, and filesystem would be close if not identical.
It has been pointed out that a real developer will have no trouble compiling binaries, but heck, honestly, real developers are used to paying for tools and even os software. Usually OS vendors make it easier for developers to get hold of betas and even finished copies. For instance, Apple tends to give OS copies away at dev conferences and sell the OS cheaper to developers. MSDN cost about $1200 a year last I checked and included with such subscription a copy of every OS they sell, mailed to you in nice little CD packages. If developers will pay that for Windows, how much are they willing to pay for a real OS?
Most importantly, there has been no mention of how much this new linux distro will cost. If you buy Mandrake or Redhat outright, they cost anywhere from $25 to $2000+ depending on support, bundled commercial apps, etc. Obviously they are also available for free, without support, by download. It is possible we are getting up in arms about a distro with a similar pricing scheme, though without the "free download." Besides, even if they did have free downloads, who would pay for the hosting? In the real world, providing such things cost money, you know. In any event, it is possible, even likely, that whatever the cost there will be a low-priced version for developers, and unless they copyright the layout of the CD as OpenBSD rightly does (I am certainly agreeing with Theo here...), there will be versions on cheapbytes in approximately 5 minutes.
I will admit I myself am a cheap bastard and a major reason I like linux us its freedom (as in Beer) and because of the freedom in licensing which means I don't have to worry about software police. I also have not contributed a line of code to linux, and though I would like to, it is unlikely as I am not the best programmer in the world. But I certainly think this wonderful system will not enjoy the success it has had of late if there is this kind of backlash to all commercial efforts in this field.
Folks, a lot of companies are pouring money into this, and they are in business to make money. A lot of development hours, both on and off record (off record meaning people working on linux while they are being paid to do something else...) are being shouldered by companies who have been, if you haven't been following the stock market for three years, struggling. Now here we have an effort to help linux on several fronts, by making a new commercially viable product, by unifying disparate distributions, and it is even in keeping with the spirit and letter of the GPL, and you tear it down because you can't download free copies. For shame!
I was disturbed to read in the report that DoD is now suspended from using software that has not been checked by the NSA. I hope that this applies to networking and web hosting software only . . . and that Mitre is on the task (as an NSA contractor) to test Linux and make sure it gets a presence soon in that front.
Nah, they can just use the NSA's Linux Distribution...
Actually in most states with sodomy laws it is. "Sodomy" (almost?) never carries a direct technical definition in the law, and tends to be defined as any "unnatural act." In some cases, this has led to prosecution of those who even dared request oral sex. For having endured this act (of being propositioned by her husband), Charlie Chaplin's wife was granted a divorce and a settlement of $250,000.
Granted, these laws are usually used to prosecute gays, such as a lesbian in Virginia (IIRC) and a couple in Houston, but it can just as easily be used against heterosexuals who offend authority in some way.
A case in point is Hugh Grant, who was not arrested for soliciting prostitution, but instead for commmitting "lewd and unnatural acts in public." Granted, he was only in public because a police officer followed him to the private place in which he was committing the acts (like the gay men in houston, who were in their own bedroom but were considered "in public" because police officers were peeking in the window).
an argument can be made that these actions are analogous to war, or to an execution.
Not really. The difference of course is that war and executions are sanctioned by society, and require a form of due process before initiation. IIRC, the Bible directly speaks to vengeance killing (which is what this amounts to, a form of vigilantism) and it was not sanctioned.
By passing judgement on their own and acting outside of the normal structure of law, these people are essentially violating the basic premises upon which the Bible is based.
1 The Teletubbies cruise missile
Clearly, the threat of launch of Teletubbies on any nation would be an act of Terrorism!
As tiresome as a republics claims to a monopoly on 'good' can be (and lord knows we see enough of that), the only other alternative at the time is a group that claims a monopoly on 'evil', which can't possibly be any better.
This made me think of the Linux vs Microsoft argument. Come to think of it, Microsoft does seem to claim evil as its intellectual property...
I am no fan of Pinochet, but when you consider there were massive demonstrations in favour of him, and against his trial in Europe, and a hero's welcome when he was returned, it becomes plausible some Chileans actually like him. Granted, it is possible these were all staged, and people were paid to celebrate in what we believe to be a relatively poor and unfree country, but this was believed to be the case in Nazi Germany, and was proven wrong. There actually were ordinary citizens in direct favour of the oppressive dictatorship.
In freer and ostensibly democratic societies this seems unconcionable to the average person, but it appears to be the case in such places.
I can name a few which were purposefully broken by new versions of Windows and Service Packs. For instance: RealPlayer, Lotus Notes, and Lotus Domino. In fact, Microsoft was recently caught saying they would continue to ensure current versions of RealPlayer would not work with newer versions of Windows. Of course you will say that these applications work fine in Windows, maybe even that you use them in Windows. But the reason you can use them now is that the creators of the applications changed them so they would work with Windows, which does not seem to deter Microsoft's attempts to use dirty tricks and undocumented API's (as documented in the findings of fact you did not read) to trip up competitors.
Ah, but you see if the product is not at least invented no patent can exist, and if the product is not developed, no profit can be made from owning the patent.
That may have been true before, but due to the litiguous behaviour of the late 20th and early 21st century, it is now possible to obtain profits without the expense of actually developing technology (by patenting widely used techniques then suing those who utilize them as a means of profit), and indeed without taking the trouble to invent the technology in the first place.
That this has now become the main source of revenue for a number of companies (like British Telecom and Rambus), and indeed is the sole business plan and means of existence of a number of others is indicative of the problem as it stands today. The fact a number of companies now exist as consultancies to such companies, paid to dig through records to find patents the company owns which might bring fruitful lawsuits (which is how British Telecom found out they'd "invented hyperlinks") shows how lucrative this practice has become. It is this sort of parasitic practice, nurtured by the status quo, which serves to undermine the original purpose of patent law and inflame the opposition you see here.
Compaq actually did produce a replacement for the program manager; IIRC it was called Tabworks. The look and feel was a set of folders in a binder with coloured and collated tabs (representing groups) and on each one you created buttons to represent programs. It messed up a lot of stuff, actually, and reduced the efficiency of your computer by bloat and overhead, not to mention it was unstable and prone to corruption.
Packard Bell made something even worse which created a 3d virtual office the user had to walk around in to find things to do on the computer. It was a bloody mess.
Perhaps not all Compaqs had the offending feature. IIRC it was something their home PC's had.
Forget Outlook. If rules are what you are after, and scoring, and colouring, sylpheed-claws is the answer. These features may end up in the main sylpheed, as well.