Here's some of the things I think are wrong with linux, distributions and most OSS in general (in no particular order):
- Putting to much emphasis on code instead of thinking first where the project should go. Basically, a project should begin with a plan and then try to create code to reach the goal, not the other way around. Of course, goals should be flexible, but there should be a leader able to say : yeah, that code is nice but there is more important thing to do first, so we won't incorporate it for now (it's like "eat your vegetables first and then you'll have dessert").
- Lack of documentation. Documentation is more important than code for long lived programs. A project leader should not accept code if it's not well documented.
- Preferring choice over standard. There should be 1 standard kernel, 1 standard GUI, 1 standard package manager... Sure, if some people want to use the other GUI they should be able to hack their system, but someone should have the guts to say : this is the official solution for this release, sorry for the other guy.
- Prefering source over binary. Most projects have little documentation so compiling them is sometime a PITA. Programs that compile fine with an old version of GCC or library, but not on newer versions are not uncommon. The fact that source is available is nice, but developpers should always offer binaries.
- Prefering speed over security and reliability. Who cares about a 15% speed improvement on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 that is used to read e-mails. Linux should be based on a micro-kernel. C should be avoided when possible (I'm a strong supporter of Ada). Binaries should be compiled with most run-time verifications on (it should be the default for makefiles).
- Lack of stability. Minor versions should not include new features. Once again, there should be a leader able to say : Yeah, this feature is nice and we will include it next year with the next major version, but not now.
- Prefering functionality over usability. What good is functionality if no one can understand the interface? This means that interfaces should be designed before the implementation of the functionality. And by interface, I don't mean only GUI. I also mean thinking about how users will backup and restore data and configuration file, how they will be able to export files, how they will install and be able to remove easily the application (which means no scatered files in 7 different directories)...
Voting is not a voice. It's an illusion of a voice. Take, for example, what happened in Algeria. In 91 the ISF won the first round of election. So what did the "democratic party" do? It declared the ISF was illegal and cancelled the election in the name of "democracy".
In 1998 D.C. 69% of D.C. residents voted in favor of legalizing the medical use of marijuana. But congress blocked the implementation of the law and made sure another referendum on the issue was not possible.
Voting is just an illusion. But for most people this illusion is enough. The fact is they don't really care about politics and they don't give a damn about what it means to be a citizen. For most people, civic duties means watching a 1 hour debate on TV while eating popcorn and putting a ballot in a box once every five years. After they have done that, they believe they have performed their civic duties. I believe that's bullshit.
Sure, I could get in line and put my ballot in the box like everyone else. After all, it would take only 15 minutes of my time. But by refusing to vote, by going against the norm, I hope to make people think. That's my real voice.
Back to operating systems. Of course I know that there is other OS designs. There is even good things with Linux (L4Linux or SELinux for example). Some solutions already exists! But almost every Linux fanboys here on slashdot will say that Linux is reliable, secure OS. Most will say that mandatory fine-grained ACL are not needed since UGO is such a wonderful paradigm. They believe Linux is perfect and nothing should be changed. Like the perfect qwerty keyboard that everyone is still using.
The problem with OS is not a lack of solution. It's people ignorance and need for easy self gratification. This is what I hope to change. But posting a link to SELinux of publishing a nice paper won't do anthing. People already know about SELinux.
You may say that bitching and moaning only get someone pushed aside as loud mouth... But guess who's having the candy : the kid who's simply asking his mother once, or the kid who's comlaining for half an hour?
You may have faith in people intelligence. I don't.
Every day I read at least 3 different news sources. CNN, Le monde and Aljazeera (plus my local newspapers - I live in Quebec). When there's some important news, I also read The Pravda, and BBC news. You know why? Because I'm polically very active. Because I believe my first duty as a citizen is to be informed. And you know what? I refuse to vote. In fact, I'm always trying to convince people not to vote. Do you really think it's because I don't give a shit? Things are not as simple as you want them to be.
BTW, why do you think I'm "complaining" about linux? Why do you think I'm "wasting" my time posting on slashdot? Posting specifications about an interface or how to implement mandatory ACL won't get me anywhere. People don't like change. Just look at your keyboard. It's still designed this way so hammers don't jam. But ergonomic keyboards are no secret! So why is there 15 "different" keyboards at my local computer store but not a single ergonomic one? I could try to contribute to Linux. But like ergonomic keyboards, no one will use what I create unless it's the same old thing.
This means bitching and moaning is the best way to make things change. If enough people bitch and moan, then, maybe, the herd will realize they're following the wrong leaders.
People who vote get what they ask for. So they don't have the right to complain. People who don't vote have the right to complain about everything since everything is imposed to them.
I don't like Linux, I won't participate, but I have certainly the right to say that there is no good operating system available. I don't force anyone to make one, I don't _demand_ a good OS, I just say what I think.
Also, I did pay for some of the distributions I tried, so I think I have every right to say I'm unhappy with what I bought.
But you're probably right. I should build my own OS. After all creating an OS from scratch should not take that long, maybe two or three months? Right? Yes, I'm sarcastic, but this idea that if I don't like something then I should build my own, is not realistic.
So you think "average Joe" will become "Joe the expert computer guy" if you put him in front of a linux box?
I just reinstalled Windows for one of client home computer. Before that, I created on his computer a regular account and told him to use that one. But after being annoyed a couple of time with having to login as administrator to install programs, he decided to always login as Administrator. Guess what happened...
Sorry, but I believe "average Joe" will simply log in as root, like he does with windows.
In what way linux distros are more "powerful" than say Windows? What is so special about Linux? If you mean that Linux is hard to use because it's powerful, sorry but linux is not more powerful than other operating systems.
I can't even remember all distributions I tried for the past 6 years, but they all sucked. So I guess I should "sat down and tried to build what I want", right? Well, even at full time, I alone couldn't build a whole operating system.
Then build parts to add to "Linux"? No, because I think Linux is a waste of time. Don't get me wrong... I use it, I install servers, I agree that sometimes it can do some things better than Windows, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't like Linux (btw, I don't like Windows either). I think Linux "philosophy" is wrong in about every way.
Then start a new project? Well, I'm thinking about it a lot of time. The problem is I know nobody (worthy enough) will join the project unless I create a significant part of it first... and unfortunately, I don't have the time to do it (I have to work to pay the bills). I did try to search for a good OS project, but everything I found was about implementing another Unix. Unix should be dead by now!
No, a neutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb without the uranium-238 jacket (this jacket is used to increase the blast from regular hydrogen bomb). Without this jacket, the blast is smaller but there is more radiation. And it does exist. The first (known) sucessful test was in 1962.
And how about people who are skeptical about the game itself? I know my computer can run Doom 3 but from what I read not everybody likes it... and since its price is ridiculously high I want to be sure I like it before buying it.
Obviously? Really?... Do you have names? (yes I'm sarcastic)
Take a look at SourceForce... You will find 50 projects doing the same thing the same way, but none is complete and "progress" goes very slow. Nobody wants to work on someone else's code. There could be 50 billion people on the planet and it would still be the same thing.
bugs that are reported get fixed with alacrity
No they don't. Some bugs in OpenOffice are 2 or 3 years old and nobody is fixing them. The address book problem with Mozilla is there since 1.0 and nobody is fixing it. A quick look showed that KDE still has 7497 bugs, but they still prefer to add new shiny things. Do you want me to go on?
The number one rule with OSS should be : no new feature until all know bugs are fixed (alphas excluded of course). Can you name a single project with this philosophy?
Lots of people do get paid to work on OSS, you know
I think "a few" would be a little closer to reality than "lots of".
Without design specifications and a complete, well written documentation, the only way people could check a program is by reading the whole code and understanding the whole thing. Do you know a lot of people who would waste hundred of hours to look for bugs (apart from the ones who are developing the program) ?
OSS permits investigation, but no one is doing it because most OSS project have very little documentation. The result is most OSS project are extremely buggy.
And even worst, since most people who "work" on OSS project do it as a hobby, they prefer to add new shiny things rather than fixing bugs. Take the address book in mozilla/Thunderbird for example. I regularly lose contacts. Also, I once deleted a contact, and it gave the address of the deleted contact to the preceding contact - which means I was sending mail TO THE WRONG PERSON. Last week I tried to copy 34 address from one address book to another, it said 34 address copied, but then there was only 33 address. Found the missing address, tried to copy it (drag and drop), but no, I had to enter it manually. It's a real joke but no one is fixing it.
So who's shouting "Shut up! I can't hear you! la la la la" ?
So, why haven't France and Germany just withdrawn from NATO
I believe France left NATO in 1966. They came back for a joint operation in Bosnia in 1995 (when Chirac was elected) but not as a full member. The reason they came back ? Because France wanted to show that Europe was not divided and, more importantly, that the US was not the ennemy. It seems it was a good move because there is now some european joint operations. Nothing important, but this is a start.
increased military spending to reasonable levels
We can argue endlessly about what "reasonable levels" are, but France is the european country spending the most for its military (and they are on a plan to raise their spending even more). OTOH, it's true Germany is not doing its share. They're still having problems with its reunification and they are still "pacifists" so they tend to rely too much on France. (Personally I think this situation is kind of funny) But even if Germany was doing its share, France and Germany would still be unable to be an alternative unless they go to such ridiculous levels as the ones in north korea. To be really interesting, a european force also need Italy, Spain and the UK.
Are they trying to make the rest of Europe pay for it?
Actually Germany and France are net contributors to Europe (Germany being the most important one). So it's not that they want to make the rest of Europe pay for it, but I guess they are not willing to pay for the rest of Europe.
It'll be interesting to see how well the European economy holds up under military spending levels comparable to the USA.
Really bad. But the US won't be able to keep those kind of military spending for long. China is now happy to pay for the US debt... but for how long?
Itmight surprise you to know that most Americans could care less about the UN
I'm not surprised at all. Hey! I live in Quebec! And since Quebec's TV stations SUCKS guess what I'm watching...
Of course you don't care about the UN. But you have to realize that the UN, the way it is now, is very important for the US. The US have veto power in the security council. This means that they can block anything that they don't like (take what happened with the ICC for example). In fact the UN is important for the US because the US can make the UN irrelevant (and they regularly do). A new "UN" without veto power would be a terrible news for the US. If you want to understand why, just take a look at the WTO.
It'll take a fleet like the Brits had early last century for anyone to rival us, really.
I agree. From a military point of view the US will still be the most powerful country in 50 years. But in 20 years from now, a lot of countries will become nuclear powers. This mean that no matters how powerful the US are, they won't be able to threaten other countries.
When I talk about being the "world leader" I don't mean being the world bully. I mean being a leader. For example, I remember full well when Challenger exploded and I remember being really sad. Why? Because I saw Americans as great people. When Columbia exploded, I didn't give a damn. Why? Because I now see the US as a decaying nation.
Of course, you may not care about what I think but maybe you care about what I do. 15 years ago I thought "Made in Taiwan" meant cheap and "Made in USA" meant great product. Now, I don't see any difference and I buy the least expensive (guess which one is it). 10 years ago, I thought investing in US companies was the best thing to do. Now, it's Canada and Europe all the way.
This is what being a world leader is all about. The US is still the world leader for now. This is why the interest rate is so low in the US. This is why the US can have this huge trade deficit without inflation. For how long?
As Bush said, "you're either with us or against us". In practice it means you better do whatever we want or you can be sure we'll do what we can to make your life miserable.
You're probably not aware of this, but not so long ago, some european leader were not very happy with some of the new members of the EU. Why? Because they asked money from the EU and they use it to buy military equipment from the US. The one who is helping is the EU. The US is only the bully.
As for dissolving NATO, it's no big secret that France and Germany are trying to create a real european force able to oppose the US. Unfortunately, the UK is more american than european, Spain had a really pro-US government (but that changed 5 months ago) and Italy is still kind of pro-US (I'm talking about governments, not population), so the project is going real slow. Maybe in 10 or 15 years.
There is also rumors about some talks between France, Germany and Russia to create a kind of replacement for the UN. It's really not official, it will take time, but if the US continue to give the finger to everyone you can be sure it will happen. The big question is what will China do. They are not really pro-US but in a few years they will have so much power over the US economy (thanks to the US debt and trade deficit) that they may think they would have more power by controlling the US than by pushing them aside.
The US still have a good 10 to 15 years as the world leader. After that ? Who knows what will happen...
Word is included with Works suite ($CDN 115, don't know the price in the US).
Word has bugs, but I would be really surprised if AbiWord was bug free. I'm certainly as anti-Microsoft as the other guy (I use OpenOffice at home even if I have a Word license) but I believe Word is still the best WP for now and I would certainly not tell one of my client to switch (already had some bad experience).
What makes you think a Linux server is more stable and secure than a NT server ? Is it because of the UGO "security" model? Or because there is no bug or exploit with OSS ?
I am a computer consultant and I do install and support Linux and OSS. And you know what ? I'm really tired of all the time I must spend patching security holes.
From a security point of view, Windows is a joke, but so is Linux. A few years ago I thought SELinux was a step in the right direction. But the fact is, nobody really cares about security. It seems the only thing people care about is speed (and, of course, patting themselves on the back).
Take a stopwatch and try to see what 1/100 of a second is before complaining. BTW, but you do know that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right ?
Of course, european governments are incluences by corporations but the difference is most european people think the real ennemy is not their government but big corporations. So when their governments side to much with corporations they tend to vote the other way.
Also, it you take France for example, democracy is not a two-party system. Which means a government is in fact a coalition and that is far more difficult to buy.
Sorry to say this, but "creating" something should not give you the right to control what I do with MY tape recorder and the CD that I bought. If I buy something, it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it.
Yeah, I know, it's more complicated than that. But this is to make you understand that copyrights are a tool, not a "right". We need copyright because our economic system can not naturally cope with abstract things. It's a tool to reward the author of a creation, not a tool to give power to the author over other people.
I guess you do not realize that in many cases, we don't need copyrights. I'm a computer consultant and I do create "things". But on my standard contract there's a clause saying that even though I keep all copyrights, the client can do whatever he wants with whatever I give him. For example, I've made a program that take Squid's log and produce a nice report. When I install a Squid proxy, I also install this program. But even though nobody ever paid for it, at least not directly, it doesn't matter much for me since I also offer services. If I charge only for half of my work, I will simply double my rate. And since my "creations" help me offer better services, my clients don't mind paying more. In the end, I'm paid for my creations even if it looks like I give it for free.
This business model can certainly be used with musicians (services being concerts). So why don't they do it? Well, I guess it's because abusing one of the system's tool can be a lot more profitable than working hard. Call me a "commie" if you wish, but I believe that no song is worth millions of dollars. If a singer can become a millionaire by spending two or three days in a studio, then it's a proof that the tool (the copyright system) is broken.
Of course, most people believe that abusing the system and your neighbour is perfectly ok. Look at your buddy...I also had clients who refused to pay. It's certainly no fun, but I will never threaten them with criminal charges. For me, this is simply abuse.
Now back to CD. Don't you find strange that something that cost less than $1 is sold $20? Don't you find strange that whether an album is a hit or not its price stay the same? It smells a lot like abuse to me. And, you'll probably say that I'm a fucking "commie", but if someone is abusing me than I don't have any remorse about abusing him in return.
BTW, your comparison with the beer industry is wrong. If a small company made a beer that taste exactly the same as Heineken and is half the price, then Heineken could not do anything against the other company.
Yeah, OOo installation is a little better for a home user (no need to enter the f***ing key), but obviously you never did a network or a multi-user install with OOo...
What? Sorry but this is only wishful thinking. I did a test with one of my client. Writer was able to open most documents but a perfect import was quite rare. OTOH, I didn't found any problem with Word 2003.
Don't get me wrong, I use OpenOffice but I will not tell my clients to get rid of Word (at least not the ones who can buy it), compatibility is not good enough. Unfortunately, by looking at the time it took to solve "issue 2109", I must admit I'm quite pessimistic about the chance of seeing good enough compatibility anytime soon.
A grammar checker may not be that useful for english but for several other languages it's a necessity. Anyway, people are reluctant to change and they will use any excuse to criticize the new thing. By not having a spell checker, OpenOffice is viewed as a "cheap" product, not a serious alternative.
But having said that, you are right. Word file format compatibility is the #1 problem.
1) CD-R cost more than DVD-R per MB (at least in Canada). Of course, if you use only 2 or 3 CDs a month then I guess you simply don't need DVDs. For someone who use 20 or 30 CDs a month, DVDs are a much better deal.
2) My weekly backup is about 1.8 GB. Using ONE DVD+RW is much simpler than THREE CD-RW.
3) A 8x DVD recorder is FASTER than a 52x CD recorder.
3) There will always be something "better". Will you wait forever ? Who cares if DVDs are obsolete in 5 years. Anyway CDs will become obsolete pretty fast too.
Maybe you don't know this, but most DVD players can read BOTH DVD-R and DVD+R. It's not like the VHS / Betamax war.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's some of the things I think are wrong with linux, distributions and most OSS in general (in no particular order) :
;)
- Putting to much emphasis on code instead of thinking first where the project should go. Basically, a project should begin with a plan and then try to create code to reach the goal, not the other way around. Of course, goals should be flexible, but there should be a leader able to say : yeah, that code is nice but there is more important thing to do first, so we won't incorporate it for now (it's like "eat your vegetables first and then you'll have dessert").
- Lack of documentation. Documentation is more important than code for long lived programs. A project leader should not accept code if it's not well documented.
- Preferring choice over standard. There should be 1 standard kernel, 1 standard GUI, 1 standard package manager... Sure, if some people want to use the other GUI they should be able to hack their system, but someone should have the guts to say : this is the official solution for this release, sorry for the other guy.
- Prefering source over binary. Most projects have little documentation so compiling them is sometime a PITA. Programs that compile fine with an old version of GCC or library, but not on newer versions are not uncommon. The fact that source is available is nice, but developpers should always offer binaries.
- Prefering speed over security and reliability. Who cares about a 15% speed improvement on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 that is used to read e-mails. Linux should be based on a micro-kernel. C should be avoided when possible (I'm a strong supporter of Ada). Binaries should be compiled with most run-time verifications on (it should be the default for makefiles).
- Lack of stability. Minor versions should not include new features. Once again, there should be a leader able to say : Yeah, this feature is nice and we will include it next year with the next major version, but not now.
- Prefering functionality over usability. What good is functionality if no one can understand the interface? This means that interfaces should be designed before the implementation of the functionality. And by interface, I don't mean only GUI. I also mean thinking about how users will backup and restore data and configuration file, how they will be able to export files, how they will install and be able to remove easily the application (which means no scatered files in 7 different directories)...
Do you want me to go on?
Just out of curiosity... what is your project?
Voting is not a voice. It's an illusion of a voice. Take, for example, what happened in Algeria. In 91 the ISF won the first round of election. So what did the "democratic party" do? It declared the ISF was illegal and cancelled the election in the name of "democracy".
In 1998 D.C. 69% of D.C. residents voted in favor of legalizing the medical use of marijuana. But congress blocked the implementation of the law and made sure another referendum on the issue was not possible.
Voting is just an illusion. But for most people this illusion is enough. The fact is they don't really care about politics and they don't give a damn about what it means to be a citizen. For most people, civic duties means watching a 1 hour debate on TV while eating popcorn and putting a ballot in a box once every five years. After they have done that, they believe they have performed their civic duties. I believe that's bullshit.
Sure, I could get in line and put my ballot in the box like everyone else. After all, it would take only 15 minutes of my time. But by refusing to vote, by going against the norm, I hope to make people think. That's my real voice.
Back to operating systems. Of course I know that there is other OS designs. There is even good things with Linux (L4Linux or SELinux for example). Some solutions already exists! But almost every Linux fanboys here on slashdot will say that Linux is reliable, secure OS. Most will say that mandatory fine-grained ACL are not needed since UGO is such a wonderful paradigm. They believe Linux is perfect and nothing should be changed. Like the perfect qwerty keyboard that everyone is still using.
The problem with OS is not a lack of solution. It's people ignorance and need for easy self gratification. This is what I hope to change. But posting a link to SELinux of publishing a nice paper won't do anthing. People already know about SELinux.
You may say that bitching and moaning only get someone pushed aside as loud mouth... But guess who's having the candy : the kid who's simply asking his mother once, or the kid who's comlaining for half an hour?
You may have faith in people intelligence. I don't.
Every day I read at least 3 different news sources. CNN, Le monde and Aljazeera (plus my local newspapers - I live in Quebec). When there's some important news, I also read The Pravda, and BBC news. You know why? Because I'm polically very active. Because I believe my first duty as a citizen is to be informed. And you know what? I refuse to vote. In fact, I'm always trying to convince people not to vote. Do you really think it's because I don't give a shit? Things are not as simple as you want them to be.
BTW, why do you think I'm "complaining" about linux? Why do you think I'm "wasting" my time posting on slashdot? Posting specifications about an interface or how to implement mandatory ACL won't get me anywhere. People don't like change. Just look at your keyboard. It's still designed this way so hammers don't jam. But ergonomic keyboards are no secret! So why is there 15 "different" keyboards at my local computer store but not a single ergonomic one? I could try to contribute to Linux. But like ergonomic keyboards, no one will use what I create unless it's the same old thing.
This means bitching and moaning is the best way to make things change. If enough people bitch and moan, then, maybe, the herd will realize they're following the wrong leaders.
People who vote get what they ask for. So they don't have the right to complain. People who don't vote have the right to complain about everything since everything is imposed to them.
I don't like Linux, I won't participate, but I have certainly the right to say that there is no good operating system available. I don't force anyone to make one, I don't _demand_ a good OS, I just say what I think.
Also, I did pay for some of the distributions I tried, so I think I have every right to say I'm unhappy with what I bought.
But you're probably right. I should build my own OS. After all creating an OS from scratch should not take that long, maybe two or three months? Right? Yes, I'm sarcastic, but this idea that if I don't like something then I should build my own, is not realistic.
So you think "average Joe" will become "Joe the expert computer guy" if you put him in front of a linux box?
I just reinstalled Windows for one of client home computer. Before that, I created on his computer a regular account and told him to use that one. But after being annoyed a couple of time with having to login as administrator to install programs, he decided to always login as Administrator. Guess what happened...
Sorry, but I believe "average Joe" will simply log in as root, like he does with windows.
You should ask yourself WHY Lexmark does not make a driver for Linux.
In what way linux distros are more "powerful" than say Windows? What is so special about Linux? If you mean that Linux is hard to use because it's powerful, sorry but linux is not more powerful than other operating systems.
I can't even remember all distributions I tried for the past 6 years, but they all sucked. So I guess I should "sat down and tried to build what I want", right? Well, even at full time, I alone couldn't build a whole operating system.
Then build parts to add to "Linux"? No, because I think Linux is a waste of time. Don't get me wrong... I use it, I install servers, I agree that sometimes it can do some things better than Windows, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't like Linux (btw, I don't like Windows either). I think Linux "philosophy" is wrong in about every way.
Then start a new project? Well, I'm thinking about it a lot of time. The problem is I know nobody (worthy enough) will join the project unless I create a significant part of it first... and unfortunately, I don't have the time to do it (I have to work to pay the bills). I did try to search for a good OS project, but everything I found was about implementing another Unix. Unix should be dead by now!
So tell me... What should I do?
No, a neutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb without the uranium-238 jacket (this jacket is used to increase the blast from regular hydrogen bomb). Without this jacket, the blast is smaller but there is more radiation. And it does exist. The first (known) sucessful test was in 1962.
And how about people who are skeptical about the game itself? I know my computer can run Doom 3 but from what I read not everybody likes it... and since its price is ridiculously high I want to be sure I like it before buying it.
Some people are doing it, obviously
... Do you have names? (yes I'm sarcastic)
Obviously? Really?
Take a look at SourceForce... You will find 50 projects doing the same thing the same way, but none is complete and "progress" goes very slow. Nobody wants to work on someone else's code. There could be 50 billion people on the planet and it would still be the same thing.
bugs that are reported get fixed with alacrity
No they don't. Some bugs in OpenOffice are 2 or 3 years old and nobody is fixing them. The address book problem with Mozilla is there since 1.0 and nobody is fixing it. A quick look showed that KDE still has 7497 bugs, but they still prefer to add new shiny things. Do you want me to go on?
The number one rule with OSS should be : no new feature until all know bugs are fixed (alphas excluded of course). Can you name a single project with this philosophy?
Lots of people do get paid to work on OSS, you know
I think "a few" would be a little closer to reality than "lots of".
So I guess it means I'll say to my client : wait until Firefox 5 before switching...
OSS permits investigation and transparency
Without design specifications and a complete, well written documentation, the only way people could check a program is by reading the whole code and understanding the whole thing. Do you know a lot of people who would waste hundred of hours to look for bugs (apart from the ones who are developing the program) ?
OSS permits investigation, but no one is doing it because most OSS project have very little documentation. The result is most OSS project are extremely buggy.
And even worst, since most people who "work" on OSS project do it as a hobby, they prefer to add new shiny things rather than fixing bugs. Take the address book in mozilla/Thunderbird for example. I regularly lose contacts. Also, I once deleted a contact, and it gave the address of the deleted contact to the preceding contact - which means I was sending mail TO THE WRONG PERSON. Last week I tried to copy 34 address from one address book to another, it said 34 address copied, but then there was only 33 address. Found the missing address, tried to copy it (drag and drop), but no, I had to enter it manually. It's a real joke but no one is fixing it.
So who's shouting "Shut up! I can't hear you! la la la la" ?
It's true that life will adjust... BUT NOT ME!!!
So, why haven't France and Germany just withdrawn from NATO
I believe France left NATO in 1966. They came back for a joint operation in Bosnia in 1995 (when Chirac was elected) but not as a full member. The reason they came back ? Because France wanted to show that Europe was not divided and, more importantly, that the US was not the ennemy.
It seems it was a good move because there is now some european joint operations. Nothing important, but this is a start.
increased military spending to reasonable levels
We can argue endlessly about what "reasonable levels" are, but France is the european country spending the most for its military (and they are on a plan to raise their spending even more). OTOH, it's true Germany is not doing its share. They're still having problems with its reunification and they are still "pacifists" so they tend to rely too much on France. (Personally I think this situation is kind of funny)
But even if Germany was doing its share, France and Germany would still be unable to be an alternative unless they go to such ridiculous levels as the ones in north korea. To be really interesting, a european force also need Italy, Spain and the UK.
Are they trying to make the rest of Europe pay for it?
Actually Germany and France are net contributors to Europe (Germany being the most important one). So it's not that they want to make the rest of Europe pay for it, but I guess they are not willing to pay for the rest of Europe.
It'll be interesting to see how well the European economy holds up under military spending levels comparable to the USA.
Really bad. But the US won't be able to keep those kind of military spending for long. China is now happy to pay for the US debt... but for how long?
Itmight surprise you to know that most Americans could care less about the UN
I'm not surprised at all. Hey! I live in Quebec! And since Quebec's TV stations SUCKS guess what I'm watching...
Of course you don't care about the UN. But you have to realize that the UN, the way it is now, is very important for the US. The US have veto power in the security council. This means that they can block anything that they don't like (take what happened with the ICC for example). In fact the UN is important for the US because the US can make the UN irrelevant (and they regularly do). A new "UN" without veto power would be a terrible news for the US. If you want to understand why, just take a look at the WTO.
It'll take a fleet like the Brits had early last century for anyone to rival us, really.
I agree. From a military point of view the US will still be the most powerful country in 50 years. But in 20 years from now, a lot of countries will become nuclear powers. This mean that no matters how powerful the US are, they won't be able to threaten other countries.
When I talk about being the "world leader" I don't mean being the world bully. I mean being a leader. For example, I remember full well when Challenger exploded and I remember being really sad. Why? Because I saw Americans as great people. When Columbia exploded, I didn't give a damn. Why? Because I now see the US as a decaying nation.
Of course, you may not care about what I think but maybe you care about what I do. 15 years ago I thought "Made in Taiwan" meant cheap and "Made in USA" meant great product. Now, I don't see any difference and I buy the least expensive (guess which one is it). 10 years ago, I thought investing in US companies was the best thing to do. Now, it's Canada and Europe all the way.
This is what being a world leader is all about. The US is still the world leader for now. This is why the interest rate is so low in the US. This is why the US can have this huge trade deficit without inflation. For how long?
As Bush said, "you're either with us or against us". In practice it means you better do whatever we want or you can be sure we'll do what we can to make your life miserable.
You're probably not aware of this, but not so long ago, some european leader were not very happy with some of the new members of the EU. Why? Because they asked money from the EU and they use it to buy military equipment from the US. The one who is helping is the EU. The US is only the bully.
As for dissolving NATO, it's no big secret that France and Germany are trying to create a real european force able to oppose the US. Unfortunately, the UK is more american than european, Spain had a really pro-US government (but that changed 5 months ago) and Italy is still kind of pro-US (I'm talking about governments, not population), so the project is going real slow. Maybe in 10 or 15 years.
There is also rumors about some talks between France, Germany and Russia to create a kind of replacement for the UN. It's really not official, it will take time, but if the US continue to give the finger to everyone you can be sure it will happen. The big question is what will China do. They are not really pro-US but in a few years they will have so much power over the US economy (thanks to the US debt and trade deficit) that they may think they would have more power by controlling the US than by pushing them aside.
The US still have a good 10 to 15 years as the world leader. After that ? Who knows what will happen...
So you mean that if I don't buy a record, money will magically appear in the pocket of BMI ?
Word is included with Works suite ($CDN 115, don't know the price in the US).
Word has bugs, but I would be really surprised if AbiWord was bug free. I'm certainly as anti-Microsoft as the other guy (I use OpenOffice at home even if I have a Word license) but I believe Word is still the best WP for now and I would certainly not tell one of my client to switch (already had some bad experience).
What makes you think a Linux server is more stable and secure than a NT server ? Is it because of the UGO "security" model? Or because there is no bug or exploit with OSS ?
I am a computer consultant and I do install and support Linux and OSS. And you know what ? I'm really tired of all the time I must spend patching security holes.
From a security point of view, Windows is a joke, but so is Linux. A few years ago I thought SELinux was a step in the right direction. But the fact is, nobody really cares about security. It seems the only thing people care about is speed (and, of course, patting themselves on the back).
Take a stopwatch and try to see what 1/100 of a second is before complaining. BTW, but you do know that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right ?
Of course, european governments are incluences by corporations but the difference is most european people think the real ennemy is not their government but big corporations. So when their governments side to much with corporations they tend to vote the other way.
Also, it you take France for example, democracy is not a two-party system. Which means a government is in fact a coalition and that is far more difficult to buy.
Sorry to say this, but "creating" something should not give you the right to control what I do with MY tape recorder and the CD that I bought. If I buy something, it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it.
Yeah, I know, it's more complicated than that. But this is to make you understand that copyrights are a tool, not a "right". We need copyright because our economic system can not naturally cope with abstract things. It's a tool to reward the author of a creation, not a tool to give power to the author over other people.
I guess you do not realize that in many cases, we don't need copyrights. I'm a computer consultant and I do create "things". But on my standard contract there's a clause saying that even though I keep all copyrights, the client can do whatever he wants with whatever I give him. For example, I've made a program that take Squid's log and produce a nice report. When I install a Squid proxy, I also install this program. But even though nobody ever paid for it, at least not directly, it doesn't matter much for me since I also offer services. If I charge only for half of my work, I will simply double my rate. And since my "creations" help me offer better services, my clients don't mind paying more. In the end, I'm paid for my creations even if it looks like I give it for free.
This business model can certainly be used with musicians (services being concerts). So why don't they do it? Well, I guess it's because abusing one of the system's tool can be a lot more profitable than working hard. Call me a "commie" if you wish, but I believe that no song is worth millions of dollars. If a singer can become a millionaire by spending two or three days in a studio, then it's a proof that the tool (the copyright system) is broken.
Of course, most people believe that abusing the system and your neighbour is perfectly ok. Look at your buddy...I also had clients who refused to pay. It's certainly no fun, but I will never threaten them with criminal charges. For me, this is simply abuse.
Now back to CD. Don't you find strange that something that cost less than $1 is sold $20? Don't you find strange that whether an album is a hit or not its price stay the same? It smells a lot like abuse to me. And, you'll probably say that I'm a fucking "commie", but if someone is abusing me than I don't have any remorse about abusing him in return.
BTW, your comparison with the beer industry is wrong. If a small company made a beer that taste exactly the same as Heineken and is half the price, then Heineken could not do anything against the other company.
Oh, and also I read Wealth of nations, did you?
Yeah, OOo installation is a little better for a home user (no need to enter the f***ing key), but obviously you never did a network or a multi-user install with OOo...
What? Sorry but this is only wishful thinking. I did a test with one of my client. Writer was able to open most documents but a perfect import was quite rare. OTOH, I didn't found any problem with Word 2003.
Don't get me wrong, I use OpenOffice but I will not tell my clients to get rid of Word (at least not the ones who can buy it), compatibility is not good enough. Unfortunately, by looking at the time it took to solve "issue 2109", I must admit I'm quite pessimistic about the chance of seeing good enough compatibility anytime soon.
A grammar checker may not be that useful for english but for several other languages it's a necessity. Anyway, people are reluctant to change and they will use any excuse to criticize the new thing. By not having a spell checker, OpenOffice is viewed as a "cheap" product, not a serious alternative.
But having said that, you are right. Word file format compatibility is the #1 problem.
1) CD-R cost more than DVD-R per MB (at least in Canada). Of course, if you use only 2 or 3 CDs a month then I guess you simply don't need DVDs. For someone who use 20 or 30 CDs a month, DVDs are a much better deal.
2) My weekly backup is about 1.8 GB. Using ONE DVD+RW is much simpler than THREE CD-RW.
3) A 8x DVD recorder is FASTER than a 52x CD recorder.
3) There will always be something "better". Will you wait forever ? Who cares if DVDs are obsolete in 5 years. Anyway CDs will become obsolete pretty fast too.
Maybe you don't know this, but most DVD players can read BOTH DVD-R and DVD+R. It's not like the VHS / Betamax war.