Again, at enormous cost in human life. You're not listening. Could the US defeat Iran, even without nukes? Of course, that's obvious. But the only realistic option (read: without too much bloodshed on the American side) is nukes.
I still don't agree... Our tanks sucked against Nazi Germany, the Panzer Mk V (Panther) was the best all around tank of WWII, the M-4 Sherman couldn't hold a candle to it...
That doesn't exist today... Today we have the best tank in the world (or close to it anyway), we have a modern air force, etc.
If we went in actually prepared (not like the crappy invasion of Iraq that was poorly done without enough planning), I think we'd walk it.
Of course, if we decided to attack tomorrow and took the military we have today, we'd lose a lot and it would be rough.
It is all about being prepared.
---
Side note: Neither of us are professional Generals, so who really knows, we could both be out of our minds.:)
Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!
If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?
In many areas of the USA, a threat to your property is a threat to your person.
Yes it is, and I'm as pro-gun as you'll find, owning... well, more than one gun.:)
That being said, would I shoot someone over a modest amount of property? What if I had $500 in my wallet, would I shoot someone over that?
No, never...
It is not worth taking a life over that. Likewise, I wouldn't shoot if someone stole my truck, I have insurance and my deductible is $500, I'm not going to kill someone over that.
I have spoken to people who have actually shot someone in real life, it is not fun, it isn't pleasant, and it sucks. Every single person I've ever met (including a police officer) who has had to shoot someone says that it sucks.
So I personally would choose retreat if I can, the only real exception is my home. It is not being a coward to flee a fight if you can, unless it is your home. Where my children sleep is the only exception.
Sounds like something highly dependent upon a particular state or jurisdiction. Basically it sounds as if the "Castle Doctrine" protection of the home itself has been enlarged to the entire homestead land that the home resides upon.
Even so I would expect certain caveats. Is the stranger trespassing on the property armed for example. Bad news for a lost hunter, perhaps not for a lost hiker.
I can only speak for the laws of Texas, however I do have a concealed carry permit and I have been to the classes to learn about the rules, so I can share what I know...
In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force for three reasons:
1. To defend yourself against what you perceive to be a deadly threat to your life. If you are in fear for your life, you may shoot someone to stop them from being a threat. This doesn't mean your intent can be to kill them, you NEVER shoot to kill, you only shoot to stop. One the person is on the ground and not a threat, you cannot shoot them again.
2. To defend a third party who has a threat to their life. If you see someone being attacked and you feel their life in danger, you may use deadly force to stop the threat.
3. To defend your uninsured property. For example, if someone were to grab your purse and it had $5,000 in cash in it, that is likely not insured. You can shoot the person to stop them from getting away with your stuff. This has been extended by the courts to include the deductible on some insured property such as cars, but I personally wouldn't chance it. The example held up in concealed carry class was a guy was stealing a tractor trailer rig from a man's home. That is an expensive item and while it is insured, it also has a large deductible and it is the source of this man's living, so he would be without an income without it. The guy picked up his AR-15 rifle and went outside and saw another man inside his truck hotwiring it and starting to drive it away. He shot the thief several times through the front window of the truck and he ended up dying. It was ruled a justified shooting due to him defending his property.
---
Note that trespassing on LAND is not on that list, that topic has been brought up in class before and the instructors made it pretty clear that someone JUST WALKING ON YOUR LAND is NOT enough of a reason to shoot them. If you are not being directly threatened or they are not actually taking your property, then NO, you cannot shoot them for being on your land.
If they break into your physical home, then yes, the courts have ruled that can be, by itself, taken as a direct threat to your safety and the use of deadly force is normally acceptable. Not all states and countries agree with this, some states actually expect you to retreat from your home if possible, leaving it to the burglar. I think this is nuts, but that is what it is.
He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.
I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.
Not Walmart, not Best Buy... nothing...
I HAVE seen guards with guns at the bank, but I'm still not convinced they would shoot you if you grabbed money and ran away. The issues of private security actually shooting people are such that I'd only think they would do it to protect human life, not material items that are easy to replace.
We invaded and defeated Nazi Germany and Japan and those were MUCH tougher enemies...
What we CANNOT do is just go attack tomorrow without preparing.
If we decided to prepare and gave ourselves 3 years to build up our military and produce weapons and train soldiers, we'd win hands down.
The real trick to winning wars is not just having the best tanks and bombers, it is winning the war of supply. Amateur Generals talk battlefield tactics, professional Generals talk logistics and supply. Wars are often won or lost in the supply chain, not the actual battlefield.
4: Iran is no "shit-o-stan". Attacking Iran would be like attacking Germany or France, with retaliation that a First World government would return with. Tehran's jubes are now fully working buried sewers.
Stop smoking... whatever it is you're smoking...
All other issues aside, attacking Iran is nothing like attacking France or Germany would be...
France actually HAS nuclear weapons, and Germany has a first class military with modern weapons. Iran has none of that.
True, but that doesn't mean our military won't built robots over the next 30 years to fight, I'm sure many parents will be happy when a robot is destroyed instead of their child killed.
So your solution to hating windows 8 was to wait until MS fixed it for you. Me? I would have expected to be able to fix it myself, and I would have uninstalled it when that wasn't possible.
My solution was to continue to run Windows 7. I never used 8 on anything other than a test system.
Once 8.1 came out, I gave it another look and was impressed at the changes made. Someone at MS did listen.
As for "waiting for MS to fix it", well, that is their job. At this point, Windows has such an installed base that it would take years and years of massive stupidity at MS to really change anything.
All the software that I need to run, generally runs best on Windows. This is true for most people, hence the market share of Windows.
I'm not actually interested in what "people" buy computers for, I'm interested in what I want to do.
Good for you, but that isn't what is being discussed.
The original point is that Linux has "growing share" or "growing gaming share" or "more interest in Linux gaming", etc.
Which is a bunch of bantha dung.
By all means, use Linux, no crime in that. Just understand that you're using a very marginal (in terms of market share) desktop OS that will never be anything other than such.
I've used Linux exclusively for 10+ years, and I've come to rely on those 10,000 little things that make it great. And when those things are not available on windows, I scream in frustration.
Fair enough, but then frankly you don't really count.
Why? Because you've used it for 10 years and in case you haven't noticed, it's usage on the desktop has gone exactly nowhere.
I have no doubt there will continue to be people like you, 20 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, some people like to tinker with such things. But you'll always be in the vast minority.
Personally, my opinion and personal taste is for an interface that is fast and configurable and doesn't hide useful information in the name of being "user friendly". IMHO when an interface makes the assumption that I'm a moron and that I don't want to see what it is doing with my processor is a bad interface. A concrete example of this is the amount of information provided by the windows task manager vs something like top.
Another example, windows makes the assumption that I'm too stupid to know about the maximise button and helpfully maximises the window when I drag it to the top of the screen. Because there's no way I could possibly want a small window at the top of the screen. This infuriates me constantly (well, not constantly, "on the rare occasions I'm forced to do something on a windows machine").
I adore the configurability of thunar/xfce's context menus - I have a bunch of custom actions available on different types of files, such as a "Play ISO as DVD" option which appears for iso files. All added via thunar's neat 'configure custom actions' GUI, no messing about with the registry or playing with arcane configuration files or hoping that the coder who wrote my DVD playing software chose to create an association for iso files.
Then there's the godawful command line interface in windows. It lacks so many features it's not even funny. Tabs - what are they? Hell, you can't even press the 'up' key to get access to commands from your previous session (i.e across reboots).
Or we could talk about configuring a webserver. That's a particularly fun one. For me, setting up an enterprise-grade web server requires me to type something like 'apt-get install apache2', then spending about 1 minute editing configuration to enable the site I want. For you, it involves purchasing the latest version of windows server, ensuring that you spent enough to have not run up against the arbitrary restrictions imposed on you ('number of simultaneous connections/users') and spending an hour and a half clicking through "wizards" which assume that you're too stupid to know what a webserver is (which is an interesting assumption, given that you've chosen to set up an enterprise-grade webserver). It's a similar situation for pretty much any other server software: "apt-get install postgresql" vs "purchase MSSQL, install MSSQL, configure MSSQL for an hour". Hell, the last time I used MSSQL it didn't even allow remote connections by default - "for security". Because apparently the idea of allowing remote connections except from the super user never occurred to anybody at microsoft.
I reiterate that these are all just off the top of my head - I haven't actually sat down and tried to create an exhaustive list, or anything. These are just a couple of big ones which immediately leap to mind. In reality the reasons Linux is better are the ten thousand little things that I just don't even notice anymore until they're not available on some other platform, when I start screaming.
None of those are reasons Linux is better on the desktop for the average consumer.
Linux has less than 2% desktop market share for a reason. That doesn't mean YOU can't like and use Linux, but don't confuse a techie's likes with the mass population.
If you like Linux, go ahead. Just don't have any delusions of grandeur that "The Year of the Linux Desktop" is near, because it isn't.
And you saying that windows is good isn't an opinion or a personal taste?
No, that isn't what I said or what other people are saying.
"Windows is better than Linux for the desktop for most people."
^ That is what I'm saying.
Why? It runs the programs that most people want to run, Linux does not.
It is not about technical abilities, it is about "does it run my software".
That is really what people care about. Linux is indeed "good" from a technical point of view. Linux is indeed "good" from a server point of view. Linux is NOT "good" for the average consumer's desktop computer.
Microsoft pretty much does suck though. Windows as an OS is maybe not quite as good as its software ecosystem, although it does have certain advantages. Microsoft managed to completely overhaul its sound and color rendering systems for Vista without any problems, whereas the contemporaneous roll-out of Pulseaudio is shall we say not remembered fondly. Now if they'd stop fucking up their UI they might end up with a half-decent system.
MS isn't so bad, now that Steve Balmer is gone. Look at the changes already being made since he left. MS Office on Android? That would NEVER have happened under Steve. Windows 10 for free?
Changes are coming, there is fresh new blood that understands that MS has to adapt or die, and I think they got someone in place in time to do is.
Vista was a mess at launch, but that is largely due to launching early when the hardware and drivers weren't ready. Windows 7 is really just Vista SP3, but it wouldn't have been accepted if it were called that.
Look at Windows 8.1, it suffers from the problems that 8 had, but frankly while I tried 8 and couldn't stand it, 8.1 doesn't bother me and it is on most of my computers now. All will go to 10 when it comes out (assuming the upcoming builds are better, the current ones are rough)
---
But we see with rose colored glasses, XP was rough at launch as well, SP1 helped, SP2 really deserved to be a new OS. A few interface and color changes and they could have sold SP2 as Vista and perhaps that would have helped.
Win 7 has to be the cleanest release of an OS I've ever seen, even the consumer preview was so good that I had it on two machines for months before 7 came out and frankly, it was ready to go day one. If Win 10 is simply 8.1 polished, it may do very, very well.
Who needs Windows to run a word processor? Who needs Windows to run TurboTax when the preparation companies own web based products work just fine in almost any web browser? Who needs Windows for games when there's a BSD running PS4?
TurboTax via the web does work, but I still use the software program for various reasons. If you have a complex return (my return last year was 64 pages long), having it locally is easier to deal with. For simple returns, sure, use the web.
That being said, give it a try on Linux, it doesn't work without tricking it, since it is looking for a Windows or Mac based computer.
As for a word processor, not just any will do, it has to be MS Word. That is what the business world uses, if you do anything more than type simple notes, it needs to be in Word. Google Docs is nice, OpenOffice is nice. I've used both, neither compare to Word.
I don't need Windows
No, you don't, but you don't need a computer either.:)
You also don't need Linux, OS X would be just fine as well.
fundamentally I share your pessimism tho for different reasons. Short of getting the population down to under 5 billion (and 11 billion is looking more likely), it's going to end badly. The particular cause is the only question.
The world seems very big and the people seem very small, 11 billion doesn't strike me as a problem in itself, it is the resources those 11 billion consume that strikes me as the problem.
Perhaps it would be worth promoting a different way to live that consumes fewer resources per person?
But... on a day to day basis, LED bulbs are a win, win, win. High quality light, energy consumption so low they pay off in under a year under normal usage, and instant on.
True, and in that respect, I probably should replace all the bulbs in my house with LEDs. I'll take a look at Amazon later and see what they sell for... If the pay off is as quick as you suggest, then that would be a nice Saturday afternoon project to do with the kids.
I also have to say that the possibility for nuclear power is over. It's never been a significant share of world power generation and while nuclear is great- nuclear plus humans has a terrible record- essentially a major accident every 10 to 12 years with a resulting loss of use of real estate for hundreds of years.
Yes, and that is sad... Nuclear never had a chance, we're still using 40 year old reactor designs. It is the same reason the Concord failed, it was never updated. We also don't fly 747-100s anymore. Heck, most airlines don't fly 747-400s anymore for the same reason, the 777-200/300 are better. (well, cheaper anyway)
I still wonder what would happen if we could replace all our current 1st and 2nd gen reactors with 4th gen. If you aren't always building new ones, then you won't ever get good at it. Imagine if airplane builders back in the days of bi-planes said, "you know what, these planes are fine, we'll wait to build anything new until the 747 is invented."
You know what? It never would have happened. You have to take it one step at a time, instead you still have reactors running today that shouldn't be.
Solar is projected to be down to.36 cents/watt by 2024. At those prices-- why not use it? It's like LED's. Lower than current power generation prices for several countries, it provides energy during the periods of highest power usage, has lower water usage, lower pollution profile (tho I'm wondering what is hidden from us that will become apparent in mass production). It's prices are still dropping rapidly (in part due to temporary subsidies). Installations are rising logarithmically and have passed an inflection point towards exponential growth.
My entire issue with solar is the cost, as it becomes cheaper, of course we'll use more of it, that only makes sense. I'm all for it.
What I DO have an issue with are people who think that solar will replace coal and solve the CO2 problem. It isn't going to do that.
Solar and wind have the chance to help reduce dependence on coal and natural gas, and that is great! But they aren't a CO2 solution. If we need a CO2 solution, then what? Nuclear? That is the only one that I can see that actually would do it.
My PS4 would like to have a word with you about that "should run Windows" bit.
On the desktop, and you know it...
People don't care what OS their computers run. PS4 runs whatever it has to run to play games. Their desktop computer runs Windows because that is what runs Office, TurboTax, games, etc.
Linux largely does not. And the bigger issue? Linux doesn't have anything that ONLY runs on Linux.
If Half Life 3 came out and ONLY ran on Linux, you might get a few more people interested, but that would be a pretty stupid move on Valve's part, IMHO, from a sales point of view.
Market share is a battle won one step at the time. Either you double 1% to 2% and get a few more to care or you halve to 0.5% and a few less care. That the 90%+ didn't care and still don't care is something that might change if you get the pebble rolling into a landslide, but if the pebble's stuck you're stuck. It's not about making Linux a killer gaming platform, it's about making gaming not be a Linux-killer. If that makes it viable for another 1%, you're making progress.
With respect, I've heard that before...:) Back around 2001, the "Year of the Linux Desktop" was just around the corner.
Here we are, 14 years later...
The reasons Linux never took off on the desktop have nothing to do with technical issues, they are marketing and business issues.
Companies like Dell have tried selling computers with Linux on them, they stopped because it was more trouble than it was worth, the return rate on them was several times higher due to customers expecting to be able to run all their software on them.
Windows has such an installed base at this point, it would be very hard for anything to replace it. That installed base doesn't carry over into other markets which is why Windows Phone has gone nowhere.
---
At the end of the day, perhaps the biggest problem Linux has is that even if somehow magically every game on Steam had a perfect Linux version, if MS was somehow convinced to write MS Office for Linux, etc... I STILL don't see a reason to switch.
Maybe if Windows 10 was going to cost $100 per machine to upgrade, then sure, I'd take a look. Win 10 is free, so I sure as heck don't care.
Being different isn't a reason to change, it has to offer me something I don't currently have. I skipped Vista because it was a mess at launch and XP worked fine. I moved to Windows 7 because it was time for a 64-bit OS and it had all the kinks worked out of it. I skipped 8 because it had the same problems as Vista, but frankly 8.1 fixed most of those and I run in on several machines. The only reason my main desktop doesn't run it is 10 is so close, I don't want to make that change twice, it is a waste of my time.
---
TL;DR - So why should I go to Linux? What does it run that Windows doesn't? What will it do for me on my small 6 computer home network that Windows doesn't?
The "average person" also used Internet Explorer when it had 95% market share and was really slow at seeking alternatives. Because IE6 worked because sites had to work in IE6, the mainstream only follows once a significant portion of early adopters have led the way. Not that Linux has too many trendsetters, we're "experts" but soccer moms don't take car advice from race car drivers. They want to know what works for a soccer mom.
Changing web browsers is not remotely the same thing as changing OSes.:)
Google got a lot of people to move to Chrome simply due to offering free e-mail that didn't suck (see: Hotmail) and offering great search. Without those two, Chrome would be a foot note.
Netscape was the browser of choice, but frankly it stopped being great at version 3. 4 was bloated and slow, IE was fast.
---
The mistake in thinking that the same thing will happen to Linux is that when you install Linux, your current programs no longer run. When you put a new web browser on your computer, your old one still works, your current programs still work.
This idea that Linux is a growing trend has been talked about for 20 years. Linux has about the same market share it had 10 years ago, which is to say almost none. The "Year of the Linux Desktop" has been just around the corner for a long time now.
Frankly, I don't think it is ever coming. The reasons are not technical, Linux is just fine in that dept. But being technically good isn't enough of a reason.
I think you're confusing cause and effect, people ask why you don't use Windows and the answer is because you want to use something other than Windows.
I bring up that point for the simple reason that I do not believe that most people actually care what OS is on their computer.
People just want to know that it works and that it runs the programs they want to run.
On my work machine, I have many programs installed that have no Linux version. It would be a PITA to try and change. I simply must have MS Office, Acrobat (full version, not reader), Photoshop, Quickbooks, etc.
Try doing your taxes on Linux. It can be done, but it is again a PITA.
^ Yes, the web based versions can be "made to work", but that is a lot of hassle for your average consumer. Why not just run Windows and then it all just works?
---
TL;DR - The challenge for Linux is not technical, it has been "good enough" for a long time now. The challenge is a lack of a reason for Joe Consumer to run it or care, programs that people want to run don't come in Linux versions, it doesn't have any marketing support, etc.
1. Shows you what it's doing when it's busy (assuming you bother to ask) 2. Mounts mounting volumes in virtually every filesystem ever invented 3. Supports loopback mounting (i.e mount an iso [or any disk image] without thirdparty software) 4. Supports more than 25 attached disks. 5. Boots into a live, usable environment from a USB stick or DVD 6. Has a themeable, customisable interface 7. Supports MUCH MUCH more hardware 8. Runs on ARM devices 9. Runs on a Space Station 10. Serves up most of the web's traffic 11. Provides virtually all of the world's supercomputing 12. Has tens of thousands of high-quality applications available for free and about 3 clicks away from being installed 13. Provides free, 1-click updates 14. Doesn't have any arbitrary limitations imposed based on how much you spent on it. 15. Doesn't need a virus scanner 16. Doesn't suck ass
Have you ever even used Linux? If you tried Red Hat 5.0 back in 1998, it's probably time you took another look. In 2015, it's superior to windows in every respect except one: available proprietary software. And that's changing.
Lord... that is a nerd's wet dream to be sure... 99% of the consumer market couldn't care less about that list... #16 betrays your feelings, I have found that most of the die hard Linux supports are really Windows haters who can't afford OS X.
Linux works fine, I am well aware of this, but working fine isn't enough... Get back to me when Adobe Photoshop, MS Office, TurboTax, Quickbooks, etc. have native Linux versions.
People do not buy computers and run OSes for their own sake, they do it to run their programs and actually do stuff.
Windows does this, Linux does not. GIMP and OpenOffice are not substitutes for Photoshop and MS Office, no matter how much you want them to be.
When Windows 8 came out, I had 3 very nontechnical friends who found themselves "upgraded" to an interface which was completely foreign and confusing to them. They called me and said that their computers had "gone weird" on them. My solution was to put an xubuntu livecd into their drives and let them play with it for a bit. All 3 of them said that they preferred it because it "made more sense" and was "more like it used to be", all 3 agreed that I should wipe the windows partition and install xubuntu. All 3 are still using it.
Many people use their computer as nothing more than an Internet and e-mail machine, and in that respect, it largely doesn't matter what OS they run.
Many of these people are moving to tablets as they discover they don't really want or need a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, at enormous cost in human life. You're not listening. Could the US defeat Iran, even without nukes? Of course, that's obvious. But the only realistic option (read: without too much bloodshed on the American side) is nukes.
I still don't agree... Our tanks sucked against Nazi Germany, the Panzer Mk V (Panther) was the best all around tank of WWII, the M-4 Sherman couldn't hold a candle to it...
That doesn't exist today... Today we have the best tank in the world (or close to it anyway), we have a modern air force, etc.
If we went in actually prepared (not like the crappy invasion of Iraq that was poorly done without enough planning), I think we'd walk it.
Of course, if we decided to attack tomorrow and took the military we have today, we'd lose a lot and it would be rough.
It is all about being prepared.
---
Side note: Neither of us are professional Generals, so who really knows, we could both be out of our minds. :)
Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!
If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?
In many areas of the USA, a threat to your property is a threat to your person.
Yes it is, and I'm as pro-gun as you'll find, owning... well, more than one gun. :)
That being said, would I shoot someone over a modest amount of property? What if I had $500 in my wallet, would I shoot someone over that?
No, never...
It is not worth taking a life over that. Likewise, I wouldn't shoot if someone stole my truck, I have insurance and my deductible is $500, I'm not going to kill someone over that.
I have spoken to people who have actually shot someone in real life, it is not fun, it isn't pleasant, and it sucks. Every single person I've ever met (including a police officer) who has had to shoot someone says that it sucks.
So I personally would choose retreat if I can, the only real exception is my home. It is not being a coward to flee a fight if you can, unless it is your home. Where my children sleep is the only exception.
Sounds like something highly dependent upon a particular state or jurisdiction. Basically it sounds as if the "Castle Doctrine" protection of the home itself has been enlarged to the entire homestead land that the home resides upon.
Even so I would expect certain caveats. Is the stranger trespassing on the property armed for example. Bad news for a lost hunter, perhaps not for a lost hiker.
I can only speak for the laws of Texas, however I do have a concealed carry permit and I have been to the classes to learn about the rules, so I can share what I know...
In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force for three reasons:
1. To defend yourself against what you perceive to be a deadly threat to your life. If you are in fear for your life, you may shoot someone to stop them from being a threat. This doesn't mean your intent can be to kill them, you NEVER shoot to kill, you only shoot to stop. One the person is on the ground and not a threat, you cannot shoot them again.
2. To defend a third party who has a threat to their life. If you see someone being attacked and you feel their life in danger, you may use deadly force to stop the threat.
3. To defend your uninsured property. For example, if someone were to grab your purse and it had $5,000 in cash in it, that is likely not insured. You can shoot the person to stop them from getting away with your stuff. This has been extended by the courts to include the deductible on some insured property such as cars, but I personally wouldn't chance it. The example held up in concealed carry class was a guy was stealing a tractor trailer rig from a man's home. That is an expensive item and while it is insured, it also has a large deductible and it is the source of this man's living, so he would be without an income without it. The guy picked up his AR-15 rifle and went outside and saw another man inside his truck hotwiring it and starting to drive it away. He shot the thief several times through the front window of the truck and he ended up dying. It was ruled a justified shooting due to him defending his property.
---
Note that trespassing on LAND is not on that list, that topic has been brought up in class before and the instructors made it pretty clear that someone JUST WALKING ON YOUR LAND is NOT enough of a reason to shoot them. If you are not being directly threatened or they are not actually taking your property, then NO, you cannot shoot them for being on your land.
If they break into your physical home, then yes, the courts have ruled that can be, by itself, taken as a direct threat to your safety and the use of deadly force is normally acceptable. Not all states and countries agree with this, some states actually expect you to retreat from your home if possible, leaving it to the burglar. I think this is nuts, but that is what it is.
He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.
I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.
Not Walmart, not Best Buy... nothing...
I HAVE seen guards with guns at the bank, but I'm still not convinced they would shoot you if you grabbed money and ran away. The issues of private security actually shooting people are such that I'd only think they would do it to protect human life, not material items that are easy to replace.
I disagree, it would not take nuclear weapons...
We invaded and defeated Nazi Germany and Japan and those were MUCH tougher enemies...
What we CANNOT do is just go attack tomorrow without preparing.
If we decided to prepare and gave ourselves 3 years to build up our military and produce weapons and train soldiers, we'd win hands down.
The real trick to winning wars is not just having the best tanks and bombers, it is winning the war of supply. Amateur Generals talk battlefield tactics, professional Generals talk logistics and supply. Wars are often won or lost in the supply chain, not the actual battlefield.
4: Iran is no "shit-o-stan". Attacking Iran would be like attacking Germany or France, with retaliation that a First World government would return with. Tehran's jubes are now fully working buried sewers.
Stop smoking... whatever it is you're smoking...
All other issues aside, attacking Iran is nothing like attacking France or Germany would be...
France actually HAS nuclear weapons, and Germany has a first class military with modern weapons. Iran has none of that.
True, but that doesn't mean our military won't built robots over the next 30 years to fight, I'm sure many parents will be happy when a robot is destroyed instead of their child killed.
Then what?
You haven't watched a little movie series called Terminator, have you?
No, they are Android tablets... but nice try...
(yes, yes, I understand the base under that, but no one cares and it isn't going to carry over in the desktop market)
So your solution to hating windows 8 was to wait until MS fixed it for you. Me? I would have expected to be able to fix it myself, and I would have uninstalled it when that wasn't possible.
My solution was to continue to run Windows 7. I never used 8 on anything other than a test system.
Once 8.1 came out, I gave it another look and was impressed at the changes made. Someone at MS did listen.
As for "waiting for MS to fix it", well, that is their job. At this point, Windows has such an installed base that it would take years and years of massive stupidity at MS to really change anything.
All the software that I need to run, generally runs best on Windows. This is true for most people, hence the market share of Windows.
I'm not actually interested in what "people" buy computers for, I'm interested in what I want to do.
Good for you, but that isn't what is being discussed.
The original point is that Linux has "growing share" or "growing gaming share" or "more interest in Linux gaming", etc.
Which is a bunch of bantha dung.
By all means, use Linux, no crime in that. Just understand that you're using a very marginal (in terms of market share) desktop OS that will never be anything other than such.
I've used Linux exclusively for 10+ years, and I've come to rely on those 10,000 little things that make it great. And when those things are not available on windows, I scream in frustration.
Fair enough, but then frankly you don't really count.
Why? Because you've used it for 10 years and in case you haven't noticed, it's usage on the desktop has gone exactly nowhere.
I have no doubt there will continue to be people like you, 20 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, some people like to tinker with such things. But you'll always be in the vast minority.
Personally, my opinion and personal taste is for an interface that is fast and configurable and doesn't hide useful information in the name of being "user friendly". IMHO when an interface makes the assumption that I'm a moron and that I don't want to see what it is doing with my processor is a bad interface. A concrete example of this is the amount of information provided by the windows task manager vs something like top.
Another example, windows makes the assumption that I'm too stupid to know about the maximise button and helpfully maximises the window when I drag it to the top of the screen. Because there's no way I could possibly want a small window at the top of the screen. This infuriates me constantly (well, not constantly, "on the rare occasions I'm forced to do something on a windows machine").
I adore the configurability of thunar/xfce's context menus - I have a bunch of custom actions available on different types of files, such as a "Play ISO as DVD" option which appears for iso files. All added via thunar's neat 'configure custom actions' GUI, no messing about with the registry or playing with arcane configuration files or hoping that the coder who wrote my DVD playing software chose to create an association for iso files.
Then there's the godawful command line interface in windows. It lacks so many features it's not even funny. Tabs - what are they? Hell, you can't even press the 'up' key to get access to commands from your previous session (i.e across reboots).
Or we could talk about configuring a webserver. That's a particularly fun one. For me, setting up an enterprise-grade web server requires me to type something like 'apt-get install apache2', then spending about 1 minute editing configuration to enable the site I want. For you, it involves purchasing the latest version of windows server, ensuring that you spent enough to have not run up against the arbitrary restrictions imposed on you ('number of simultaneous connections/users') and spending an hour and a half clicking through "wizards" which assume that you're too stupid to know what a webserver is (which is an interesting assumption, given that you've chosen to set up an enterprise-grade webserver). It's a similar situation for pretty much any other server software: "apt-get install postgresql" vs "purchase MSSQL, install MSSQL, configure MSSQL for an hour". Hell, the last time I used MSSQL it didn't even allow remote connections by default - "for security". Because apparently the idea of allowing remote connections except from the super user never occurred to anybody at microsoft.
I reiterate that these are all just off the top of my head - I haven't actually sat down and tried to create an exhaustive list, or anything. These are just a couple of big ones which immediately leap to mind. In reality the reasons Linux is better are the ten thousand little things that I just don't even notice anymore until they're not available on some other platform, when I start screaming.
None of those are reasons Linux is better on the desktop for the average consumer.
Linux has less than 2% desktop market share for a reason. That doesn't mean YOU can't like and use Linux, but don't confuse a techie's likes with the mass population.
If you like Linux, go ahead. Just don't have any delusions of grandeur that "The Year of the Linux Desktop" is near, because it isn't.
And you saying that windows is good isn't an opinion or a personal taste?
No, that isn't what I said or what other people are saying.
"Windows is better than Linux for the desktop for most people."
^ That is what I'm saying.
Why? It runs the programs that most people want to run, Linux does not.
It is not about technical abilities, it is about "does it run my software".
That is really what people care about. Linux is indeed "good" from a technical point of view. Linux is indeed "good" from a server point of view. Linux is NOT "good" for the average consumer's desktop computer.
Microsoft pretty much does suck though. Windows as an OS is maybe not quite as good as its software ecosystem, although it does have certain advantages. Microsoft managed to completely overhaul its sound and color rendering systems for Vista without any problems, whereas the contemporaneous roll-out of Pulseaudio is shall we say not remembered fondly. Now if they'd stop fucking up their UI they might end up with a half-decent system.
MS isn't so bad, now that Steve Balmer is gone. Look at the changes already being made since he left. MS Office on Android? That would NEVER have happened under Steve. Windows 10 for free?
Changes are coming, there is fresh new blood that understands that MS has to adapt or die, and I think they got someone in place in time to do is.
Vista was a mess at launch, but that is largely due to launching early when the hardware and drivers weren't ready. Windows 7 is really just Vista SP3, but it wouldn't have been accepted if it were called that.
Look at Windows 8.1, it suffers from the problems that 8 had, but frankly while I tried 8 and couldn't stand it, 8.1 doesn't bother me and it is on most of my computers now. All will go to 10 when it comes out (assuming the upcoming builds are better, the current ones are rough)
---
But we see with rose colored glasses, XP was rough at launch as well, SP1 helped, SP2 really deserved to be a new OS. A few interface and color changes and they could have sold SP2 as Vista and perhaps that would have helped.
Win 7 has to be the cleanest release of an OS I've ever seen, even the consumer preview was so good that I had it on two machines for months before 7 came out and frankly, it was ready to go day one. If Win 10 is simply 8.1 polished, it may do very, very well.
Free also helps a lot... :)
Fair enough, but neither of those is absolute when the term "better" is used.
Linux does have some technical things that it does better than Windows, but that doesn't make it a better OS.
Who needs Windows to run a word processor? Who needs Windows to run TurboTax when the preparation companies own web based products work just fine in almost any web browser? Who needs Windows for games when there's a BSD running PS4?
TurboTax via the web does work, but I still use the software program for various reasons. If you have a complex return (my return last year was 64 pages long), having it locally is easier to deal with. For simple returns, sure, use the web.
That being said, give it a try on Linux, it doesn't work without tricking it, since it is looking for a Windows or Mac based computer.
As for a word processor, not just any will do, it has to be MS Word. That is what the business world uses, if you do anything more than type simple notes, it needs to be in Word. Google Docs is nice, OpenOffice is nice. I've used both, neither compare to Word.
I don't need Windows
No, you don't, but you don't need a computer either. :)
You also don't need Linux, OS X would be just fine as well.
fundamentally I share your pessimism tho for different reasons. Short of getting the population down to under 5 billion (and 11 billion is looking more likely), it's going to end badly. The particular cause is the only question.
The world seems very big and the people seem very small, 11 billion doesn't strike me as a problem in itself, it is the resources those 11 billion consume that strikes me as the problem.
Perhaps it would be worth promoting a different way to live that consumes fewer resources per person?
But... on a day to day basis, LED bulbs are a win, win, win. High quality light, energy consumption so low they pay off in under a year under normal usage, and instant on.
True, and in that respect, I probably should replace all the bulbs in my house with LEDs. I'll take a look at Amazon later and see what they sell for... If the pay off is as quick as you suggest, then that would be a nice Saturday afternoon project to do with the kids.
I also have to say that the possibility for nuclear power is over. It's never been a significant share of world power generation and while nuclear is great- nuclear plus humans has a terrible record- essentially a major accident every 10 to 12 years with a resulting loss of use of real estate for hundreds of years.
Yes, and that is sad... Nuclear never had a chance, we're still using 40 year old reactor designs. It is the same reason the Concord failed, it was never updated. We also don't fly 747-100s anymore. Heck, most airlines don't fly 747-400s anymore for the same reason, the 777-200/300 are better. (well, cheaper anyway)
I still wonder what would happen if we could replace all our current 1st and 2nd gen reactors with 4th gen. If you aren't always building new ones, then you won't ever get good at it. Imagine if airplane builders back in the days of bi-planes said, "you know what, these planes are fine, we'll wait to build anything new until the 747 is invented."
You know what? It never would have happened. You have to take it one step at a time, instead you still have reactors running today that shouldn't be.
Solar is projected to be down to .36 cents/watt by 2024. At those prices-- why not use it? It's like LED's. Lower than current power generation prices for several countries, it provides energy during the periods of highest power usage, has lower water usage, lower pollution profile (tho I'm wondering what is hidden from us that will become apparent in mass production). It's prices are still dropping rapidly (in part due to temporary subsidies). Installations are rising logarithmically and have passed an inflection point towards exponential growth.
My entire issue with solar is the cost, as it becomes cheaper, of course we'll use more of it, that only makes sense. I'm all for it.
What I DO have an issue with are people who think that solar will replace coal and solve the CO2 problem. It isn't going to do that.
Solar and wind have the chance to help reduce dependence on coal and natural gas, and that is great! But they aren't a CO2 solution. If we need a CO2 solution, then what? Nuclear? That is the only one that I can see that actually would do it.
My PS4 would like to have a word with you about that "should run Windows" bit.
On the desktop, and you know it...
People don't care what OS their computers run. PS4 runs whatever it has to run to play games. Their desktop computer runs Windows because that is what runs Office, TurboTax, games, etc.
Linux largely does not. And the bigger issue? Linux doesn't have anything that ONLY runs on Linux.
If Half Life 3 came out and ONLY ran on Linux, you might get a few more people interested, but that would be a pretty stupid move on Valve's part, IMHO, from a sales point of view.
Market share is a battle won one step at the time. Either you double 1% to 2% and get a few more to care or you halve to 0.5% and a few less care. That the 90%+ didn't care and still don't care is something that might change if you get the pebble rolling into a landslide, but if the pebble's stuck you're stuck. It's not about making Linux a killer gaming platform, it's about making gaming not be a Linux-killer. If that makes it viable for another 1%, you're making progress.
With respect, I've heard that before... :) Back around 2001, the "Year of the Linux Desktop" was just around the corner.
Here we are, 14 years later...
The reasons Linux never took off on the desktop have nothing to do with technical issues, they are marketing and business issues.
Companies like Dell have tried selling computers with Linux on them, they stopped because it was more trouble than it was worth, the return rate on them was several times higher due to customers expecting to be able to run all their software on them.
Windows has such an installed base at this point, it would be very hard for anything to replace it. That installed base doesn't carry over into other markets which is why Windows Phone has gone nowhere.
---
At the end of the day, perhaps the biggest problem Linux has is that even if somehow magically every game on Steam had a perfect Linux version, if MS was somehow convinced to write MS Office for Linux, etc... I STILL don't see a reason to switch.
Maybe if Windows 10 was going to cost $100 per machine to upgrade, then sure, I'd take a look. Win 10 is free, so I sure as heck don't care.
Being different isn't a reason to change, it has to offer me something I don't currently have. I skipped Vista because it was a mess at launch and XP worked fine. I moved to Windows 7 because it was time for a 64-bit OS and it had all the kinks worked out of it. I skipped 8 because it had the same problems as Vista, but frankly 8.1 fixed most of those and I run in on several machines. The only reason my main desktop doesn't run it is 10 is so close, I don't want to make that change twice, it is a waste of my time.
---
TL;DR - So why should I go to Linux? What does it run that Windows doesn't? What will it do for me on my small 6 computer home network that Windows doesn't?
The "average person" also used Internet Explorer when it had 95% market share and was really slow at seeking alternatives. Because IE6 worked because sites had to work in IE6, the mainstream only follows once a significant portion of early adopters have led the way. Not that Linux has too many trendsetters, we're "experts" but soccer moms don't take car advice from race car drivers. They want to know what works for a soccer mom.
Changing web browsers is not remotely the same thing as changing OSes. :)
Google got a lot of people to move to Chrome simply due to offering free e-mail that didn't suck (see: Hotmail) and offering great search. Without those two, Chrome would be a foot note.
Netscape was the browser of choice, but frankly it stopped being great at version 3. 4 was bloated and slow, IE was fast.
---
The mistake in thinking that the same thing will happen to Linux is that when you install Linux, your current programs no longer run. When you put a new web browser on your computer, your old one still works, your current programs still work.
This idea that Linux is a growing trend has been talked about for 20 years. Linux has about the same market share it had 10 years ago, which is to say almost none. The "Year of the Linux Desktop" has been just around the corner for a long time now.
Frankly, I don't think it is ever coming. The reasons are not technical, Linux is just fine in that dept. But being technically good isn't enough of a reason.
I think you're confusing cause and effect, people ask why you don't use Windows and the answer is because you want to use something other than Windows.
I bring up that point for the simple reason that I do not believe that most people actually care what OS is on their computer.
People just want to know that it works and that it runs the programs they want to run.
On my work machine, I have many programs installed that have no Linux version. It would be a PITA to try and change. I simply must have MS Office, Acrobat (full version, not reader), Photoshop, Quickbooks, etc.
Try doing your taxes on Linux. It can be done, but it is again a PITA.
https://thefearlesspenguin.wor...
^ Yes, the web based versions can be "made to work", but that is a lot of hassle for your average consumer. Why not just run Windows and then it all just works?
---
TL;DR - The challenge for Linux is not technical, it has been "good enough" for a long time now. The challenge is a lack of a reason for Joe Consumer to run it or care, programs that people want to run don't come in Linux versions, it doesn't have any marketing support, etc.
Just a couple off the top of my head:
1. Shows you what it's doing when it's busy (assuming you bother to ask)
2. Mounts mounting volumes in virtually every filesystem ever invented
3. Supports loopback mounting (i.e mount an iso [or any disk image] without thirdparty software)
4. Supports more than 25 attached disks.
5. Boots into a live, usable environment from a USB stick or DVD
6. Has a themeable, customisable interface
7. Supports MUCH MUCH more hardware
8. Runs on ARM devices
9. Runs on a Space Station
10. Serves up most of the web's traffic
11. Provides virtually all of the world's supercomputing
12. Has tens of thousands of high-quality applications available for free and about 3 clicks away from being installed
13. Provides free, 1-click updates
14. Doesn't have any arbitrary limitations imposed based on how much you spent on it.
15. Doesn't need a virus scanner
16. Doesn't suck ass
Have you ever even used Linux? If you tried Red Hat 5.0 back in 1998, it's probably time you took another look. In 2015, it's superior to windows in every respect except one: available proprietary software. And that's changing.
Lord... that is a nerd's wet dream to be sure... 99% of the consumer market couldn't care less about that list... #16 betrays your feelings, I have found that most of the die hard Linux supports are really Windows haters who can't afford OS X.
Linux works fine, I am well aware of this, but working fine isn't enough... Get back to me when Adobe Photoshop, MS Office, TurboTax, Quickbooks, etc. have native Linux versions.
People do not buy computers and run OSes for their own sake, they do it to run their programs and actually do stuff.
Windows does this, Linux does not. GIMP and OpenOffice are not substitutes for Photoshop and MS Office, no matter how much you want them to be.
https://thefearlesspenguin.wor...
^ That is a perfect example of why Linux is a PITA for the average consumer and Windows is not.
When Windows 8 came out, I had 3 very nontechnical friends who found themselves "upgraded" to an interface which was completely foreign and confusing to them. They called me and said that their computers had "gone weird" on them. My solution was to put an xubuntu livecd into their drives and let them play with it for a bit. All 3 of them said that they preferred it because it "made more sense" and was "more like it used to be", all 3 agreed that I should wipe the windows partition and install xubuntu. All 3 are still using it.
Many people use their computer as nothing more than an Internet and e-mail machine, and in that respect, it largely doesn't matter what OS they run.
Many of these people are moving to tablets as they discover they don't really want or need a computer.