we might have to always live in fear. we could have americans scared to go abroad because such a high number die. we could have incessant attacks on our embassies.
GTK is LGPL. GNOME was started in part because Qt wasn't Free enough. It was, until very recently, considered _the_ Free Desktop.
I must be getting old.
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Okay...
realistic like saying "hey we have to use less sketchy oil so let's develop technology that is less dependent on oil?" or "we have to have a sustainable culture too and right now we use way more resources then the world can produce indefinitely?"
sorry -- that was just too partisan. at least the other posts were constructive.
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
A few things. I'll respond to your post and I'll post another post of mine that I think summarizes things well.
note one -- in the past we have made the U.N. uneffective. rwanda was a great example. those 800,000 people died because WE vetoed resolution after resolution to go in. there's a good documentary on the entire conflict on Frontline.
sudan is a similar story. watch what we've been doing. we wouldn't call it genocide for a LONG time. and powel had to "go it alone" when using the word. so we're as bad as the rest of them in that regard.
we need to educate the american people that international organizations are necessary and that we need to give our money and our men to it. the "in U.N. garb" means that instead of spending _forever_ trying to give the fewest troops we have to to U.N. missions we have some designated "U.N.-ready" force that is ready to enforce U.N. resolutions. we can take that initiative. we should.
now general things. the U.N. does have a premise of good will. one of the "problems" with the U.N. is that it is meant to support the status quo. just like our congress it is very easy to make NOTHING happen. but that is a premise of the U.N. -- global stability. i can agree that that premise could use _some_ modification. but if it is too modified then it loses the small foundation on democracy it already has. if you read the U.N. charter and large resolutions you can see that it's good stuff. i think that the foundation is pretty solid.
but i think we need to accept something -- change happens slowly in the world. and anything faster is bad. why? because we wouldn't want a system that allows too fast action. if we had it then people could decide that we are doing something wrong and attack us or one of our allies. wouldn't happen? not today, no. but in 50 years we might not be the strongest power. that's why creating a sustainable international system is so necessary now -- when a good power is the superpower.
as for kerry -- i agree. i don't consider kerry a revolutionary leader. i just think he's both more open to ideas and generally is on a better track already.
read my following post. i think i point out some important elements.
old post: There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.
Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.
does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.
so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.
this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.
we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.
my.02
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
This is a good point. I will post a response i wrote to another post. but in short -- it will certainly scare countries that are harboring terrorists. but we are supporting so many sketchy governments (pakistan -- musharref), arming them and training them. just like iraq -- at one time were friends of ours and then flipped. but we trained them. we armed them (partially.) our policy needs to be sustainable and not be so focused on today that we ruin tomorrow for ourselves.
There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.
Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.
does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.
so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.
this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.
we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.
my.02
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.
Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.
does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.
so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.
this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.
we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.
my.02
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
yes -- but those were states. these are individuals. i should have said, "you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world's population into not attacking us."
hell, if i wanted to i could walk outside and stab a few of my neighbors. terrorist attacks don't have to be planes into buildings. it could just be a slow buildup of u.s. residents with the previously developed plan to attack some number of years later when enough people had moved in. get a bit of a gun stockpile. buy a couple hummers. you wouldn't take over the country but you sure could kill a lot of people. what would be worse, 9/11 or 30 cities losing 100 people each in suicide and kamakazi attacks?
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
What? Cut and run? I didn't suggest cutting and running from anything.
And no more terrorist attacks? We have 1000 soldiers dead. Several thousand wounded. Almost every attack has been considered by terrorists. We can deal with them so long as they are in Iraq? Not yet.
I am not saying cut and run. I'm saying that the rest of the world is mad at us _for a reason_ and not just because they "hate our freedom."
madaline albright's quote about half a million dead iraqi children being a reasonable cost is still quoted today. us supporting saddam in the 80s didn't give us many brownie points either. i have to run but the list could go on forever.
i think that along with the aide we need to dish out we also need to have a sustainable foreign policy. why did we attack iraq? now we don't have the resources to attack elsewhere should it become necessary. the rest of the axis of evil, for instance.
i would say a more sustainable policy would be to make the U.N. more effective and then enforce its resolutions swiftly and firmly. with U.N. garb.
we can't take on the world. anyone who has tried has lost. if we do we will too. it might take 50 years but we can't be king of the world forever. creating a new system is necessary just for our survival.
Re:Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't quite say we were doing the let's be nice thing. I don't think anyone has done it yet.
but you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world into not attacking us.
i am not saying clinton did it right. i'm not saying bush did it wrong. i'm saying someone needs to do it differently and bush isn't going to.
Before the comments start...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have had this discussion with many people already. It goes something like this:
"I just read a study that showed that some tremendous number of people abroad would vote for Kerry over Bush" (some university of maryland professor did that study.)
"Huh? It's OUR election."
"Yes, but what the rest of the world thinks DOES matter."
"Not in our election."
"Yes if the votes will influence how the world will see us. Fewer people hating us is a good thing. Both for better security and for better economic relations. Image is everything. Ask any businessman."
"Explain."
"People have to be persuaded to hate us and want to kill us. They are not born that way. If it is really obvious that we are a wonderful nation -- so obvious that any susceptible kid will likely realize it -- then we are making the population of to-be-terrorists-and-general-america-haters smaller. That is good. As for economics -- the more people like america the more they are willing to buy american stuff and sell stuff to america. pretty simple stuff."
"but we shouldn't have to buy everyone's love. why should we spend money helping them? it's not our fault they are poor and can't even govern themselves!"
"okay. simple math. if we can reduce the need for future wars by half (by bettering our image) then any amount we spend that is less than 1/2 the cost of a war is us spending less money in the long term. not to mention the lives saved."
"hmm... but you can't know that it will reduce future wars."
"true. we can't really know. a lot of things are not quantitative. the reduced possiblity of war due to our money spent to improve our image is one of the. that doesn't mean they are not important. it just means that more people need to think about it so we can come up with a better estimate and an even better appreciation for it. wars might be easier to calculate mathmatically... but they also cost a considerable amount more both monetarily and in terms of human life."
sometimes it works. sometimes it doesn't. i don't have a lot of time so i don't know if i'll respond to any responses but i promise i'll read them. please try to stay civil.
I find your argument interesting -- the draft meant to compell greater consideration.
some of the other replies have a point -- a lot of people really do support the war(s) though they are bearing the cost.
i think the only way that a draft to act as you mean it to would be if it had no exclusions. You couldn't get out of it. Even if you're a hollywood actor the CEO of a huge company or a college kid. That would make people think twice!:) I'd like to see the CEOs of the weapons companies on the battlefield.
This could go on forever so I'm not going to give you too much more fuel. I just don't think you quite understand what I meant in my last point.
Companies can do things that are legal that the public doesn't like. Outsourcing. Paying their employees pathetic (but legal) wages. Cutting benefits. Whatever you want to come up with. The public generally doesn't like to buy from those companies because they feel they are doing something wrong even if they are not breaking the law.
That's the "leech" issue's parallel. It's not that in either example the company is breaking contracts or laws. They are doing something legal that the public doesn't like. And the public gets to choose that measure.
I just installed (just meaning I just opened mozilla-firefox) debian sarge on my new laptop. wow have they improved the installer!!!
so you may very well be right. would be nice if a couple of config options were a little clearer for the newbies. i don't actually know if redhat's are.
we're not going to a violent force-led market. redhat has contracts with its customers. they agree on what redhat will provide and they agree on what redhat will be paid. if the contract is breeched by either party you can take it to court.
the relationship we were discussing is that between redhat and the public. specifically the OSS-aware public.
do you think companies shouldn't have to think about what the public thinks? a lot of these companies are publicly-owned. they fail if the public doesn't like what they are doing. it is a balancing act for any company. if any company steps too out of line then the public keeps them in check. the public is the consumer and the public decides what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
what do you want? companies to be able to do whatever they want and have the public either not know or not care?
1) the idea of a consumer economy and a free market is that the public decides what they want to pay for and what they are willing to pay for it. if people can't fill that desire then they don't succeed as a business.
in a truly free economy -- which Free Software is doing a good job of ensuring -- the profit margins are always very thin. that's what competition is supposed to do. if another CEO is willing to live in a barrel so he can beat your company by offering service (or whatever their source of revenue is) then you had better do the same.
2) we have rule of law for a reason. that's how anarchy (not socialism) is prevented.
3) are people angry when they find out that kfc's chickens are being abused by the workers at the meat factory (throwing them against the wall, etc)? yes. does it affect kfc's business? yes. it's the same thing but in the OSS marketplace. in some markets you have to make sure you're not abusing your employees or else people won't buy your stuff. in this market you have to make sure that you're not seen as a leech or people won't buy your stuff.
THE RULES ARE THE SAME.
and none of this has anything to do with socialism. come on.
wow. seems to be what everyone is saying. i doubt i'm going to stop using debian but maybe i should look into some other distros to recommend to others. (using debian is a religious issue for me. militantly free software.)
Umm... I don't really know if I understand what you mean to say. I think what you are saying is that they say it's free but then expect something back.
It is free -- you are not required to give anything back.
And the balancing act is in providing free software while still staying a profitable business. That's called the free market. If giving back to the community will let you make more money -- then you should do it. If just taking software and never trying to give back and manage to cause people to not want to buy your software then sucks for you.
That's the free market. You have to deal with reality. Companies that have a better public image make more money. This is true with OSS business and with other businesses.
I love it. I've been using it exclusively since 1998 or 1999. But i'm an odd one. I'm young but I have no interest in new stuff -- i just like stability and consistency.
I do use testing. I find it very stable. i used unstable for years. It worked for the most part. The only tricky times would be when major upgrades were happening -- new gnomes, or something like that.
I"m not snoby though. To each his or her own. I just prefer stability to anything. Debian gives me that.
But thank you for the info. I didn't know they'd gotten better. Maybe i'll try them on a extra computer if i come across one.
Slashdot Mirror
what the hell man? you must be off your rocker.
when confronted with 9/11 how can it get worse?
we might have to always live in fear. we could have americans scared to go abroad because such a high number die. we could have incessant attacks on our embassies.
no matter how bad it could always get worse.
Woah!
GTK is LGPL. GNOME was started in part because Qt wasn't Free enough. It was, until very recently, considered _the_ Free Desktop.
I must be getting old.
Okay...
realistic like saying "hey we have to use less sketchy oil so let's develop technology that is less dependent on oil?" or "we have to have a sustainable culture too and right now we use way more resources then the world can produce indefinitely?"
sorry -- that was just too partisan. at least the other posts were constructive.
A few things. I'll respond to your post and I'll post another post of mine that I think summarizes things well.
.02
note one -- in the past we have made the U.N. uneffective. rwanda was a great example. those 800,000 people died because WE vetoed resolution after resolution to go in. there's a good documentary on the entire conflict on Frontline.
sudan is a similar story. watch what we've been doing. we wouldn't call it genocide for a LONG time. and powel had to "go it alone" when using the word. so we're as bad as the rest of them in that regard.
we need to educate the american people that international organizations are necessary and that we need to give our money and our men to it. the "in U.N. garb" means that instead of spending _forever_ trying to give the fewest troops we have to to U.N. missions we have some designated "U.N.-ready" force that is ready to enforce U.N. resolutions. we can take that initiative. we should.
now general things. the U.N. does have a premise of good will. one of the "problems" with the U.N. is that it is meant to support the status quo. just like our congress it is very easy to make NOTHING happen. but that is a premise of the U.N. -- global stability. i can agree that that premise could use _some_ modification. but if it is too modified then it loses the small foundation on democracy it already has. if you read the U.N. charter and large resolutions you can see that it's good stuff. i think that the foundation is pretty solid.
but i think we need to accept something -- change happens slowly in the world. and anything faster is bad. why? because we wouldn't want a system that allows too fast action. if we had it then people could decide that we are doing something wrong and attack us or one of our allies. wouldn't happen? not today, no. but in 50 years we might not be the strongest power. that's why creating a sustainable international system is so necessary now -- when a good power is the superpower.
as for kerry -- i agree. i don't consider kerry a revolutionary leader. i just think he's both more open to ideas and generally is on a better track already.
read my following post. i think i point out some important elements.
old post:
There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.
Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.
does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.
so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.
this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.
we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.
my
This is a good point. I will post a response i wrote to another post. but in short -- it will certainly scare countries that are harboring terrorists. but we are supporting so many sketchy governments (pakistan -- musharref), arming them and training them. just like iraq -- at one time were friends of ours and then flipped. but we trained them. we armed them (partially.) our policy needs to be sustainable and not be so focused on today that we ruin tomorrow for ourselves.
.02
There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.
Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.
does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.
so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.
this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.
we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.
my
There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.
.02
Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.
does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.
so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.
this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.
we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.
my
yes -- but those were states. these are individuals. i should have said, "you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world's population into not attacking us."
hell, if i wanted to i could walk outside and stab a few of my neighbors. terrorist attacks don't have to be planes into buildings. it could just be a slow buildup of u.s. residents with the previously developed plan to attack some number of years later when enough people had moved in. get a bit of a gun stockpile. buy a couple hummers. you wouldn't take over the country but you sure could kill a lot of people. what would be worse, 9/11 or 30 cities losing 100 people each in suicide and kamakazi attacks?
What? Cut and run? I didn't suggest cutting and running from anything.
And no more terrorist attacks? We have 1000 soldiers dead. Several thousand wounded. Almost every attack has been considered by terrorists. We can deal with them so long as they are in Iraq? Not yet.
I am not saying cut and run. I'm saying that the rest of the world is mad at us _for a reason_ and not just because they "hate our freedom."
madaline albright's quote about half a million dead iraqi children being a reasonable cost is still quoted today. us supporting saddam in the 80s didn't give us many brownie points either. i have to run but the list could go on forever.
i think that along with the aide we need to dish out we also need to have a sustainable foreign policy. why did we attack iraq? now we don't have the resources to attack elsewhere should it become necessary. the rest of the axis of evil, for instance.
i would say a more sustainable policy would be to make the U.N. more effective and then enforce its resolutions swiftly and firmly. with U.N. garb.
we can't take on the world. anyone who has tried has lost. if we do we will too. it might take 50 years but we can't be king of the world forever. creating a new system is necessary just for our survival.
I wouldn't quite say we were doing the let's be nice thing. I don't think anyone has done it yet.
but you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world into not attacking us.
i am not saying clinton did it right. i'm not saying bush did it wrong. i'm saying someone needs to do it differently and bush isn't going to.
I have had this discussion with many people already. It goes something like this:
"I just read a study that showed that some tremendous number of people abroad would vote for Kerry over Bush" (some university of maryland professor did that study.)
"Huh? It's OUR election."
"Yes, but what the rest of the world thinks DOES matter."
"Not in our election."
"Yes if the votes will influence how the world will see us. Fewer people hating us is a good thing. Both for better security and for better economic relations. Image is everything. Ask any businessman."
"Explain."
"People have to be persuaded to hate us and want to kill us. They are not born that way. If it is really obvious that we are a wonderful nation -- so obvious that any susceptible kid will likely realize it -- then we are making the population of to-be-terrorists-and-general-america-haters smaller. That is good. As for economics -- the more people like america the more they are willing to buy american stuff and sell stuff to america. pretty simple stuff."
"but we shouldn't have to buy everyone's love. why should we spend money helping them? it's not our fault they are poor and can't even govern themselves!"
"okay. simple math. if we can reduce the need for future wars by half (by bettering our image) then any amount we spend that is less than 1/2 the cost of a war is us spending less money in the long term. not to mention the lives saved."
"hmm... but you can't know that it will reduce future wars."
"true. we can't really know. a lot of things are not quantitative. the reduced possiblity of war due to our money spent to improve our image is one of the. that doesn't mean they are not important. it just means that more people need to think about it so we can come up with a better estimate and an even better appreciation for it. wars might be easier to calculate mathmatically... but they also cost a considerable amount more both monetarily and in terms of human life."
sometimes it works. sometimes it doesn't. i don't have a lot of time so i don't know if i'll respond to any responses but i promise i'll read them. please try to stay civil.
If we let them make us stop using email then they have won!
I find your argument interesting -- the draft meant to compell greater consideration.
:) I'd like to see the CEOs of the weapons companies on the battlefield.
some of the other replies have a point -- a lot of people really do support the war(s) though they are bearing the cost.
i think the only way that a draft to act as you mean it to would be if it had no exclusions. You couldn't get out of it. Even if you're a hollywood actor the CEO of a huge company or a college kid. That would make people think twice!
2002 wasn't that long ago. my desktop has 1+ year uptime. i stopped playing around with distros in 1999.
but thank you for the summary. it's good to know.
good point. should have used another word. enjoy that tea :)
This could go on forever so I'm not going to give you too much more fuel. I just don't think you quite understand what I meant in my last point.
Companies can do things that are legal that the public doesn't like. Outsourcing. Paying their employees pathetic (but legal) wages. Cutting benefits. Whatever you want to come up with. The public generally doesn't like to buy from those companies because they feel they are doing something wrong even if they are not breaking the law.
That's the "leech" issue's parallel. It's not that in either example the company is breaking contracts or laws. They are doing something legal that the public doesn't like. And the public gets to choose that measure.
I just installed (just meaning I just opened mozilla-firefox) debian sarge on my new laptop. wow have they improved the installer!!!
so you may very well be right. would be nice if a couple of config options were a little clearer for the newbies. i don't actually know if redhat's are.
I don't get it.
I never chose to have a karma bonus -- it's the default.
And why do you care?
If you want to post your stuff at a higher score then get a username. It's free.
I was just respectfully replying to someone who had replied to my post.
man you're an interesting cat.
we're not going to a violent force-led market. redhat has contracts with its customers. they agree on what redhat will provide and they agree on what redhat will be paid. if the contract is breeched by either party you can take it to court.
the relationship we were discussing is that between redhat and the public. specifically the OSS-aware public.
do you think companies shouldn't have to think about what the public thinks? a lot of these companies are publicly-owned. they fail if the public doesn't like what they are doing. it is a balancing act for any company. if any company steps too out of line then the public keeps them in check. the public is the consumer and the public decides what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
what do you want? companies to be able to do whatever they want and have the public either not know or not care?
A couple of things
1) the idea of a consumer economy and a free market is that the public decides what they want to pay for and what they are willing to pay for it. if people can't fill that desire then they don't succeed as a business.
in a truly free economy -- which Free Software is doing a good job of ensuring -- the profit margins are always very thin. that's what competition is supposed to do. if another CEO is willing to live in a barrel so he can beat your company by offering service (or whatever their source of revenue is) then you had better do the same.
2) we have rule of law for a reason. that's how anarchy (not socialism) is prevented.
3) are people angry when they find out that kfc's chickens are being abused by the workers at the meat factory (throwing them against the wall, etc)? yes. does it affect kfc's business? yes. it's the same thing but in the OSS marketplace. in some markets you have to make sure you're not abusing your employees or else people won't buy your stuff. in this market you have to make sure that you're not seen as a leech or people won't buy your stuff.
THE RULES ARE THE SAME.
and none of this has anything to do with socialism. come on.
Again -- (from my other post) we need to deal with reality.
The parent wants traditional business contracts.
Times change. If you want to stay on top of the game in a competative market you need to change too.
God I love Free Software!
wow. seems to be what everyone is saying. i doubt i'm going to stop using debian but maybe i should look into some other distros to recommend to others. (using debian is a religious issue for me. militantly free software.)
Umm... I don't really know if I understand what you mean to say. I think what you are saying is that they say it's free but then expect something back.
It is free -- you are not required to give anything back.
And the balancing act is in providing free software while still staying a profitable business. That's called the free market. If giving back to the community will let you make more money -- then you should do it. If just taking software and never trying to give back and manage to cause people to not want to buy your software then sucks for you.
That's the free market. You have to deal with reality. Companies that have a better public image make more money. This is true with OSS business and with other businesses.
Cool. I will have to try to check that out.
Wow -- you can't stand it?
I love it. I've been using it exclusively since 1998 or 1999. But i'm an odd one. I'm young but I have no interest in new stuff -- i just like stability and consistency.
I do use testing. I find it very stable. i used unstable for years. It worked for the most part. The only tricky times would be when major upgrades were happening -- new gnomes, or something like that.
I"m not snoby though. To each his or her own. I just prefer stability to anything. Debian gives me that.
But thank you for the info. I didn't know they'd gotten better. Maybe i'll try them on a extra computer if i come across one.
oh yeah -- and what is that freeipod thing? i don't feel like giving my email address out. have you used it? do you know it is worthwhile?