"As an upper mid-level management member of corel for the last 10 years..." "...profit from our hard earned IP."
I don't believe you put much into the actual development of the software.
Also, your logic seems to flow along with SCO's.
Programemrs get paid for services they provide. Even software companies understand that they get paid for services provided, thus the reason for licensing. The business model of selling software as a product is not a very good one. Open source software should give you a good example. Companies selling the Linux OS are not selling a stand-alone product, but services provided based around the product. Believe what you want about ownership of ideas, but if you do as much reading as I do, you too will realize how wrong this is. I won't go into detail, but remember this, service is the fastest growing sector. Ownership of ideas is not capitalistic, it is monopolistic. Even the constitution states this. The only reason it was put in was because it was believed that a short term monopoly on a particular idea would help promote progress (which is very debatable). Since then it has grown into a "we created the idea, we deserve complete ownership and control over it". You can say what you want about "hard earned IP", but that woill not stop the change from rent seeking behavior type business models to an economic shift toward services.
I really wonder how informed those that are buying stock are. There is far too much going against SCO. Not only are they up against IBM, Linux developers, Linux users, and many companies that have some affiliation with Linux, but also all the information that surrounds this case. They have yet proved anything. The entire history of the Linux kernel can be traced down to individual contributors. Do the shareholders know all this? The parent poster should not have said "post their negative feelings,' but instead something like informing potential and current investors of the challenge that SCO faces. The parent poster does have a point though. As long as the posts were kept professional and courteous, then it would have an effect. The parent poster was right, but wrong. So are you. He was tilting toward a spam tactic, you are leaning toward apathy. I prefer education over action/inaction.
If you could give me one good reason to place a real time video recording device in the airplane, then you win.
If by chance there was a terrorist that boarded a plane, then what would a video tape of him on the plance accomplish? The point of security is to prevent one from entering a plane in the first place.
There is one reason I see for this, but it wouldn't require a full motion capturing video camera; a simple camera that took a picture every few random minutes would be fine. The purpose could be to have a visual log of those on the plane. That way one could be tracked, even if they used fake identification. Combine a picture of people on a plane and face recognition and you could track those with fake identification instead of comparing names of those on a plane. Now again, what is the purpose of capturing full motion on a plane?
Going by your logic, the table saw in my garage is a problem, it almost cut off my thumb.
Going by reasonable logic. It is not the table saw that is the problem, but not correctly using it that is.
A tool is never a problem. It is everything surrounding the tool that needs to be questioned. Who makes it? Why? How? What is its purpose? What are people using it for? Why? How? and many more.
1. Two birds on a tree with two dogs breathing fire on them. 2. Cartman (I haven't even seen many SP episodes) 3. Someone drawing with both hands 4. I have no idea. Nothing comes up. 5. Two weeping men with large green hats 6. Spider 7. Mean green fly 8. Dino men from Super Mario Brothers movie 9. Deformed Hulk 10. Batman
This could scare IT professionals into accepting lower pay. Since there is a perception that jobs are being outsourced overseas (true or not I do not know), then an IT worker may think twice about declining a job the next time they are offered pay that they expected to be higher.
You still fail to realize that they are NOT implementing an idea which consists of a tank or any other device that you have to carry with the laptop. The entire system is contained within the laptop. Although it seems they are also considering desktop/server versions that won't be the same as the laptop ones. Your fears of liquid in your computer are a little too much. Any liquid within such a device will be tightly enclosed. If you drop your laptop hard enough to cause the enclosure to rupture, then you have other things to worry about. Your hard drive, LCD, and various other devices are more likely to be damaged before the liquid comes free.
I fully agree with using Crusoe chips and such, but I understand the need for faster processors and better cooling. For the most part, we will continually see processors drawing much less power before and staying very cool. Yet heat is something that is hard to get away from, especially when you need more processing. I have a laptop running an AMD processor that runs fairly cool compared to other laptops, but when it is under heavy load, the fans kick in. Water cooling has the advantage of being far less noisy if done right and at times does a better job as well. Until the day that processors use extremely small amounts of wattage and are able to keep up with demand (it will come, just a matter of how long), then we have to compromise and use the best available means to cool our hunger. I'm pleased that NEC is taking the initiative on making water cooling more popular. Obviously it is in their best interest. Yet, more efficient and quieter methods of cooling are of interest to anyone in the IT arena. Also, Crusoe's are really nice when it comes to power consumption. Unfortunately, many need/want more power. Also, NEC is not attaching a huge tank to the side of their notebooks.
Ever heard of the slippery slope argument fallacy?
" The problem is that this could lead to the abolition of copyright altogether."
That pretty much describes it.
Then you proceed to make more argument fallacies. "The net cost to publishers would rise because they would not be able to reliably recover as much of their costs, so the publication of works would become increasingly rarer. Although any material may be freely shared, not all of it would necessarily be easy to find. Fans of artists or authors of obscure works would be entirely out of luck."
Your first sentence is completely based on assumptions for one. Your forgetting many factors such as independant works. Another one is P2P, which makes distribution cheaper. Rarer? I know of a librarian that has a hobby of searching the net for rare music (his fav genre which I don't remember). He is compiling a large database of this music to share. He catalogs it all. Many of these artists no longer play either. Companies rarely do things like this. So in reality, companies create more rarity than people across the internet. Now how would it not be easy to find when there are people out there cataloging this stuff as a hobby? When millions are sharing files and it is becoming a popular trend? Fans of obscure artists are finding it even easier to find the music they love and similar music. The librarian I just spoke of sometimes found information on artists, songs, albums, etc. from people that knew the artists. Your view of a copyrightless society is based on all the arguments companies have used to defend the law and increase the scope, length, and strength of it. What they say seems to makes sense economically, but even government ownership of all land made economic sense at one point in time. Have you read some of the most recent insights into intellectual property law by economists? Even Alen Greenspan raised questions about it (http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches/ 2003/20030404/default.htm).
Yes, he very much cares. Since he is the largest stock owner, of course he has a say in what happens. As a stockholder you have a say in what goes on and the more you own the more say you have.
Have you ever taken an ethics class? Bill Gates is an egoist. It is very apparent from everything he has ever done in his life. Even egoists will donate money and do other charity related activities. It is part of what egoists do to appear that they aren't only self interested. Although I'm sure at the same time he does want to help, this isn't his main goal. He has and will put himself and his company before anything else. I would love to continue explaining how his actions have done more harm than good in many instances, but I would spend all night. I hope at least some of my words will inspire you to read an ethics book.
Re:Comparing linux software to windows
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why is it bad to compare OSS software with a proprietary counterpart? I think it gives those that don't know about the software a chance to see how they compare. If someone for example uses, MS Excel and wants to switch to the OpenOffice equivalent or Gnumeric in this instance, then they could see before hand if it contains all of the features they use frequently. At the same time it could show them features they have always wanted but could not get with the proprietary software. We compare things all the time. Is it really so wrong to do it with software?
You forgot to mention all the aid the U.S. has provided for war. We all know how important military aid in the form of weapons is to accomplishing peace. I bet those terrorists think very highly of the U.S. for supplying all those weapons. As a peace negotiator we can't take sides or else we take some of the crossfire.
Well, ok. First we have RIAA going all out sueing people left and right. Then we have SCO going all out crazy on the OSS and Linux community. Now we have the infamous telemarketing companies "counterattacking" their customers. Next up, grocery stores throwing tomatoes at shoppers. Businesses are supposed to provide products and services, not shove them down our throats. It is our choice what we buy anyway, isn't it?
Sorry, my "" html tags became hidden (even when I set to post as text only. That top paragraph was meant to be sarcastic. If anything, patents slowed or even prevented certain things from being implemented into OSS software.
"USA TODAY:There seems to be some worry at Microsoft about Linux and some of these Web-based things like Sim Desk that have popped up. Houston, Munich, and Beijing have all been considering using Linux-based products rather than going through Microsoft. How much of this is a concern?
Bill Gates: Well those are our current competitors. I mean, it's no different than in the past people used [IBM's operating system] OS/2."
Wrong, Linux is very different as a competitor. Open source, GNU, not company controlled, thousands of developers, millions of users, large base of software, large base of experts, should I go on Billy? Should I remind you that your company claimed Linux as its biggest threat? How about all those "Halloween" documents? I bet OS/2 wasn't looked into that far. Then again, that is the best answer he could give without scaring investors, customers, and the public into thinking that Microsoft is finding it very difficult to compete against Linux. Perception means a lot in business.
Why pull numbers out of your ass? According to a recent interview with some of the/. crew on slashnet found here http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-2003 0612.h tml it is about 50%.
Web surfing, writing, basic application usage, and some gaming. I've done much more intensive stuff with Linux and had no problems with the applications crashing the OS.
It is so obvious that patents have stopped such great operating systems like Linux and BSD, and various OSS software like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, GIMP, and various other GNU software and other OSS from grabbing market share. Also, without those patents Linus and all those other OSS programmers are out of jobs. What do they do without patents?
It is apparent you haven't really thought about this subject beyond money terms the corporations look at. No matter what side your on, you can not deny the fact that without patents technology does not halt, IT KEEPS GOING. Patents go against capitalism. They are simply monopolies on a technology. True capitalism is supposed to allow free market competition. This does not exist when one owns a piece of technology. I'm not against just software patents, but all patents. Go ahead and call me stupid, crazy, anarchist, communist, and anything else you can come up with. Then after your done, ask yourself why the h*ll you just called me all those things. Next, ask yourself if patents really are needed. Do people stop inventing because they can't own the ideas to the technology? Do people stop coding new software because it will become available to all to use without a single penny of profit coming back? Is the purpose of a company to hire scientists to create monopolies in technology or to provide service for customers? I believe without patents companies will still hire scientists and others. Why wouldn't they? If they want to provide services and get paid, then they need the brightest to keep up with technology and provide new ideas. Yes, one company can take another companies idea and use them. Which btw happens all the time. (I found a booklet for training employees at my job. The booklet is from a rival company. Just one example.) When it comes to technology, one can not simply hire a bum off the street. The better your employees, the better your company. There is no better your patents, better your company anymore. This is just one of the reasons some of the brightest leave companies. Taking an idea isn't everything. One must understand it. Then one must apply it. It takes money and time to apply a new idea. The machinery, the training, and many other aspects must be included. Patents have an effect of creating technological monopolies. The best way large corporations fight this is by using their own patent portfolio for leverage. Anyway, I've been ranting too long for now.
Yes, in the short term it does cost less most of the time to stick with the current system. The problem is long term. Our taxes pay for all of this. Stability and security are major issues that will only grow with time. A system that wasn't designed well from the ground up, is not going to have a much more difficult time than one designed for stability and security from the beginning. You have to admit that Microsoft focused and still does to a pretty good extend on ease-of-use. Although OSS is not easy to use, it can be. An easy to use interface is just that, an interface. It is evolutionary. Things become easier to use overtime with advances in technology. Microsoft unfortunately tried to go for ease-of-use before having a strong foundation. They did more harm to the IT industry than most people realize.
Our taxes pay for all of this. I would much rather have our government hire IT professionals that create OSS and implement it than outsourcing everything to private companies that use proprietary code. There is too much risk in using proprietary code. Do you want me to start listing them? The government doesn't necessarily have to have permenant IT employees either. Contract out the work. Those that do a poor job would not get another contract. It would be easier to contract with another since there would be no lock-in and all the software can be worked on by the new group/person. There is a lot of talk about all the software that has to be ported. I say go for it, and in the mean time, a good portion could probably be run on win32 emulators. Who says they can't keep a small portion running proprietary software anyway? One thing we can't do is simply give up on solutions. Allowing one company to have such control is very anticapitalistic.
"Modified by whom? Certified for DoD use by whom? As for "services...the army needs", even the army can't tell you that, so they'd say "just make it do everything". Also, who's going to port all the lame crap software the army already has that runs under windows? What if some of it can't be ported?
Your question can be applied to Microsofts software as well, so why ask it? The same people that certify any other software for DOD would do the same with OSS. "Just make it do everything" I'm sure is not what they say, and who says you can't do "everything" on OSS? Now about porting "lame" crap. It can be done. There is no "can't" in software porting. It is just a matter of difficulty, cost, time, legality, etc. In the long run, it would most likely benefit them greatly since they wouldn't be locked into the proprietary software.
"People don't forget passwords or forget which printer is theirs in Linux?"
So your stating this problem exists in Linux as well. So in other words, there wouldn't be a difference either way. It is easier to prevent problems on in the Linux OS then it is in Windows. Windows has this crazy ability to do what it feels is right. On Linux, what you set is what you get, unless you state otherwise. Windows is made to be easy to use and thus problems arise when it thinks it is doing the right thing no matter how contrary it is to what you want it to do. A properly configured Linux system will have no problems. Also, take into account the knowledge of a *nix admin over a MCSE admin.
"Nobody who's ever given anything to an 11B (infantryman) ever calls anything unbreakable."
Slashdot Mirror
"As an upper mid-level management member of corel for the last 10 years..."
"...profit from our hard earned IP."
I don't believe you put much into the actual development of the software.
Also, your logic seems to flow along with SCO's.
Programemrs get paid for services they provide. Even software companies understand that they get paid for services provided, thus the reason for licensing. The business model of selling software as a product is not a very good one. Open source software should give you a good example. Companies selling the Linux OS are not selling a stand-alone product, but services provided based around the product. Believe what you want about ownership of ideas, but if you do as much reading as I do, you too will realize how wrong this is. I won't go into detail, but remember this, service is the fastest growing sector. Ownership of ideas is not capitalistic, it is monopolistic. Even the constitution states this. The only reason it was put in was because it was believed that a short term monopoly on a particular idea would help promote progress (which is very debatable). Since then it has grown into a "we created the idea, we deserve complete ownership and control over it". You can say what you want about "hard earned IP", but that woill not stop the change from rent seeking behavior type business models to an economic shift toward services.
I really wonder how informed those that are buying stock are. There is far too much going against SCO. Not only are they up against IBM, Linux developers, Linux users, and many companies that have some affiliation with Linux, but also all the information that surrounds this case. They have yet proved anything. The entire history of the Linux kernel can be traced down to individual contributors. Do the shareholders know all this? The parent poster should not have said "post their negative feelings,' but instead something like informing potential and current investors of the challenge that SCO faces.
The parent poster does have a point though. As long as the posts were kept professional and courteous, then it would have an effect. The parent poster was right, but wrong. So are you. He was tilting toward a spam tactic, you are leaning toward apathy. I prefer education over action/inaction.
If you could give me one good reason to place a real time video recording device in the airplane, then you win.
If by chance there was a terrorist that boarded a plane, then what would a video tape of him on the plance accomplish? The point of security is to prevent one from entering a plane in the first place.
There is one reason I see for this, but it wouldn't require a full motion capturing video camera; a simple camera that took a picture every few random minutes would be fine. The purpose could be to have a visual log of those on the plane. That way one could be tracked, even if they used fake identification. Combine a picture of people on a plane and face recognition and you could track those with fake identification instead of comparing names of those on a plane. Now again, what is the purpose of capturing full motion on a plane?
So much for joining the mile high club on Southeast.
I just think it would be nice if they provided information on which of players had problems reading the different discs.
"Guns are a problem..."
Going by your logic, the table saw in my garage is a problem, it almost cut off my thumb.
Going by reasonable logic. It is not the table saw that is the problem, but not correctly using it that is.
A tool is never a problem. It is everything surrounding the tool that needs to be questioned. Who makes it? Why? How? What is its purpose? What are people using it for? Why? How? and many more.
1. Two birds on a tree with two dogs breathing fire on them.
2. Cartman (I haven't even seen many SP episodes)
3. Someone drawing with both hands
4. I have no idea. Nothing comes up.
5. Two weeping men with large green hats
6. Spider
7. Mean green fly
8. Dino men from Super Mario Brothers movie
9. Deformed Hulk
10. Batman
This could scare IT professionals into accepting lower pay. Since there is a perception that jobs are being outsourced overseas (true or not I do not know), then an IT worker may think twice about declining a job the next time they are offered pay that they expected to be higher.
You still fail to realize that they are NOT implementing an idea which consists of a tank or any other device that you have to carry with the laptop. The entire system is contained within the laptop. Although it seems they are also considering desktop/server versions that won't be the same as the laptop ones. Your fears of liquid in your computer are a little too much. Any liquid within such a device will be tightly enclosed. If you drop your laptop hard enough to cause the enclosure to rupture, then you have other things to worry about. Your hard drive, LCD, and various other devices are more likely to be damaged before the liquid comes free.
I fully agree with using Crusoe chips and such, but I understand the need for faster processors and better cooling. For the most part, we will continually see processors drawing much less power before and staying very cool. Yet heat is something that is hard to get away from, especially when you need more processing. I have a laptop running an AMD processor that runs fairly cool compared to other laptops, but when it is under heavy load, the fans kick in. Water cooling has the advantage of being far less noisy if done right and at times does a better job as well. Until the day that processors use extremely small amounts of wattage and are able to keep up with demand (it will come, just a matter of how long), then we have to compromise and use the best available means to cool our hunger. I'm pleased that NEC is taking the initiative on making water cooling more popular. Obviously it is in their best interest. Yet, more efficient and quieter methods of cooling are of interest to anyone in the IT arena.
Also, Crusoe's are really nice when it comes to power consumption. Unfortunately, many need/want more power.
Also, NEC is not attaching a huge tank to the side of their notebooks.
Ever heard of the slippery slope argument fallacy?
/ 2003/20030404/default.htm).
" The problem is that this could lead to the abolition of copyright altogether."
That pretty much describes it.
Then you proceed to make more argument fallacies.
"The net cost to publishers would rise because they would not be able to reliably recover as much of their costs, so the publication of works would become increasingly rarer. Although any material may be freely shared, not all of it would necessarily be easy to find. Fans of artists or authors of obscure works would be entirely out of luck."
Your first sentence is completely based on assumptions for one. Your forgetting many factors such as independant works. Another one is P2P, which makes distribution cheaper. Rarer? I know of a librarian that has a hobby of searching the net for rare music (his fav genre which I don't remember). He is compiling a large database of this music to share. He catalogs it all. Many of these artists no longer play either. Companies rarely do things like this. So in reality, companies create more rarity than people across the internet. Now how would it not be easy to find when there are people out there cataloging this stuff as a hobby? When millions are sharing files and it is becoming a popular trend? Fans of obscure artists are finding it even easier to find the music they love and similar music. The librarian I just spoke of sometimes found information on artists, songs, albums, etc. from people that knew the artists.
Your view of a copyrightless society is based on all the arguments companies have used to defend the law and increase the scope, length, and strength of it. What they say seems to makes sense economically, but even government ownership of all land made economic sense at one point in time. Have you read some of the most recent insights into intellectual property law by economists? Even Alen Greenspan raised questions about it (http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches
Yes, he very much cares. Since he is the largest stock owner, of course he has a say in what happens. As a stockholder you have a say in what goes on and the more you own the more say you have.
Have you ever taken an ethics class? Bill Gates is an egoist. It is very apparent from everything he has ever done in his life. Even egoists will donate money and do other charity related activities. It is part of what egoists do to appear that they aren't only self interested. Although I'm sure at the same time he does want to help, this isn't his main goal. He has and will put himself and his company before anything else. I would love to continue explaining how his actions have done more harm than good in many instances, but I would spend all night. I hope at least some of my words will inspire you to read an ethics book.
Why is it bad to compare OSS software with a proprietary counterpart? I think it gives those that don't know about the software a chance to see how they compare.
If someone for example uses, MS Excel and wants to switch to the OpenOffice equivalent or Gnumeric in this instance, then they could see before hand if it contains all of the features they use frequently. At the same time it could show them features they have always wanted but could not get with the proprietary software. We compare things all the time. Is it really so wrong to do it with software?
You forgot to mention all the aid the U.S. has provided for war. We all know how important military aid in the form of weapons is to accomplishing peace. I bet those terrorists think very highly of the U.S. for supplying all those weapons.
As a peace negotiator we can't take sides or else we take some of the crossfire.
Well, ok. First we have RIAA going all out sueing people left and right. Then we have SCO going all out crazy on the OSS and Linux community. Now we have the infamous telemarketing companies "counterattacking" their customers. Next up, grocery stores throwing tomatoes at shoppers.
Businesses are supposed to provide products and services, not shove them down our throats. It is our choice what we buy anyway, isn't it?
Sorry, my "" html tags became hidden (even when I set to post as text only. That top paragraph was meant to be sarcastic. If anything, patents slowed or even prevented certain things from being implemented into OSS software.
"USA TODAY:There seems to be some worry at Microsoft about Linux and some of these Web-based things like Sim Desk that have popped up. Houston, Munich, and Beijing have all been considering using Linux-based products rather than going through Microsoft. How much of this is a concern?
Bill Gates: Well those are our current competitors. I mean, it's no different than in the past people used [IBM's operating system] OS/2."
Wrong, Linux is very different as a competitor. Open source, GNU, not company controlled, thousands of developers, millions of users, large base of software, large base of experts, should I go on Billy? Should I remind you that your company claimed Linux as its biggest threat? How about all those "Halloween" documents? I bet OS/2 wasn't looked into that far.
Then again, that is the best answer he could give without scaring investors, customers, and the public into thinking that Microsoft is finding it very difficult to compete against Linux.
Perception means a lot in business.
Btw, the top paragraph was meant to be sarcastic.
Why pull numbers out of your ass? /. crew on slashnet found here3 0612.h tml
According to a recent interview with some of the
http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-200
it is about 50%.
Web surfing, writing, basic application usage, and some gaming.
I've done much more intensive stuff with Linux and had no problems with the applications crashing the OS.
It is so obvious that patents have stopped such great operating systems like Linux and BSD, and various OSS software like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, GIMP, and various other GNU software and other OSS from grabbing market share. Also, without those patents Linus and all those other OSS programmers are out of jobs. What do they do without patents?
It is apparent you haven't really thought about this subject beyond money terms the corporations look at. No matter what side your on, you can not deny the fact that without patents technology does not halt, IT KEEPS GOING. Patents go against capitalism. They are simply monopolies on a technology. True capitalism is supposed to allow free market competition. This does not exist when one owns a piece of technology. I'm not against just software patents, but all patents.
Go ahead and call me stupid, crazy, anarchist, communist, and anything else you can come up with. Then after your done, ask yourself why the h*ll you just called me all those things. Next, ask yourself if patents really are needed. Do people stop inventing because they can't own the ideas to the technology? Do people stop coding new software because it will become available to all to use without a single penny of profit coming back? Is the purpose of a company to hire scientists to create monopolies in technology or to provide service for customers?
I believe without patents companies will still hire scientists and others. Why wouldn't they? If they want to provide services and get paid, then they need the brightest to keep up with technology and provide new ideas. Yes, one company can take another companies idea and use them. Which btw happens all the time. (I found a booklet for training employees at my job. The booklet is from a rival company. Just one example.) When it comes to technology, one can not simply hire a bum off the street. The better your employees, the better your company. There is no better your patents, better your company anymore. This is just one of the reasons some of the brightest leave companies. Taking an idea isn't everything. One must understand it. Then one must apply it. It takes money and time to apply a new idea. The machinery, the training, and many other aspects must be included.
Patents have an effect of creating technological monopolies. The best way large corporations fight this is by using their own patent portfolio for leverage. Anyway, I've been ranting too long for now.
Yes, in the short term it does cost less most of the time to stick with the current system.
The problem is long term. Our taxes pay for all of this. Stability and security are major issues that will only grow with time. A system that wasn't designed well from the ground up, is not going to have a much more difficult time than one designed for stability and security from the beginning. You have to admit that Microsoft focused and still does to a pretty good extend on ease-of-use. Although OSS is not easy to use, it can be. An easy to use interface is just that, an interface. It is evolutionary. Things become easier to use overtime with advances in technology. Microsoft unfortunately tried to go for ease-of-use before having a strong foundation. They did more harm to the IT industry than most people realize.
Our taxes pay for all of this. I would much rather have our government hire IT professionals that create OSS and implement it than outsourcing everything to private companies that use proprietary code. There is too much risk in using proprietary code. Do you want me to start listing them? The government doesn't necessarily have to have permenant IT employees either. Contract out the work. Those that do a poor job would not get another contract. It would be easier to contract with another since there would be no lock-in and all the software can be worked on by the new group/person.
There is a lot of talk about all the software that has to be ported. I say go for it, and in the mean time, a good portion could probably be run on win32 emulators. Who says they can't keep a small portion running proprietary software anyway? One thing we can't do is simply give up on solutions. Allowing one company to have such control is very anticapitalistic.
"Modified by whom? Certified for DoD use by whom? As for "services ...the army needs", even the army can't tell you that, so they'd say "just make it do everything". Also, who's going to port all the lame crap software the army already has that runs under windows? What if some of it can't be ported?
Your question can be applied to Microsofts software as well, so why ask it? The same people that certify any other software for DOD would do the same with OSS. "Just make it do everything" I'm sure is not what they say, and who says you can't do "everything" on OSS? Now about porting "lame" crap. It can be done. There is no "can't" in software porting. It is just a matter of difficulty, cost, time, legality, etc. In the long run, it would most likely benefit them greatly since they wouldn't be locked into the proprietary software.
"People don't forget passwords or forget which printer is theirs in Linux?"
So your stating this problem exists in Linux as well. So in other words, there wouldn't be a difference either way. It is easier to prevent problems on in the Linux OS then it is in Windows. Windows has this crazy ability to do what it feels is right. On Linux, what you set is what you get, unless you state otherwise. Windows is made to be easy to use and thus problems arise when it thinks it is doing the right thing no matter how contrary it is to what you want it to do. A properly configured Linux system will have no problems. Also, take into account the knowledge of a *nix admin over a MCSE admin.
"Nobody who's ever given anything to an 11B (infantryman) ever calls anything unbreakable."
Isn't this a hardware issue?
Your lucky. I got my laptop about 2 weeks ago. It has XP preinstalled. It crashed at least 3 times since I got it.