I think your arguments are silly. Sure maybe in the revelutionary war guns might have helped and even in subsequent wars guns kill off a few of the enemy but in no way are they successful in the modern world in defending your liberty.
Think about it. If all you said was true, if an armed populace could really repel a force then the afghans should have been able stop the US army. The palestenians could have thrown off the israeli occupation, the iraquis could have stopped the relentless bombing campaign against them. If molov cocktails could disable tanks then the israeli army would have no tanks left. Hell the palestenians can't even stop caterpillars with guns.
Molotov cocktails (which are not guns) and ak47s can't ever stop a determined air force or an invading army. The populace has to choose different weapons these days. The palestenians have seen the futility of handheld weapons against israeli tanks and have chosen high explosives. One day they will go to chemical and biological weapons because in reality those are the best weapons for fighting off an opressive occupying army. They are cheap, easy to manufacture and inflict tremendous damage. They are the molov cocktails of the future (perhaps the present).
" Actually, Christians are instructed that their body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit," and that we're not to defile it. Smoking, or other destructive behavior, is disrespect and defilement."
You wouldn't know it from listening to the christian leaders. They protest abortion clinics, adult video stores, strip clubs, homosexual marriages but I have never heard any religious leader protest a beer company or a cigarette company. In fact they are usually on the side of the cigarette companies as a part of their pro business agenda.
" It takes time. There's the matter not just *what* to do, but *when* to do it. Most things run pretty much on inertia."
maybe most things run on inertia but clearly linux is not one of them. It's under very active development and improvements come at an amazing pace. Two years ago linux did not support SMP. The next version of the kernel will be avble to support more processors then most people can afford.
"Linux on the desktop as a mere replacement for Microsoft Windows seems like a waste of valuable resources, and out of character for what Linux should grow up to be. Somewhere, somehow there is something that a Linux desktop should be good for that Microsoft *cannot* compete with."
On this I agree with you 100%. Linux has a bigger and better destiny then to mimic some crappy OS that consists of stolen ideas from other operating systems. Windows is the worst thing linux can attempt to emulate.
I remain optimistic that the tens of thousands of people working in and around the OSS projects will one day stumble upon an idea that will shake the world. I look at zope, mozilla and jabber and see that it is already happening to some degree. Innovation is out there and clearly the OSS people are creative as hell.
Re:Good News
on
Mandrake News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
" I often find myself in Discussions wondering why Linux hasn't taken off due its good qualities"
Just exactly what do you mean by "hasn't taken off"? Linux userbase grows by leaps and bounds every year. It has gone from a hobby OS to a major player in the server market in three years. It will make similar advances in the desktop in the next three years.
Rome wasn't built in a day you know. If you are really impatient for world dominance then I am sure lots of programmers could use your help in writing documentation and testing for bugs. Roll up your sleeves world domination is but a few years away!
What are you saying? That MS does not bribe CEOs of corporations to use windows? If so you are sorely misinformed.
MS does indeed bribe CEOs and CIOs. Sometimes it's a yatch, sometimes it's a rolex, sometimes it's a free trip or two but MS knows how to spread the bribes.
"The individuals who are members of the militia of the United States are clearly defined in US Law [findlaw.com]. Whether or not there exists list contains all and only those who qualify is a separate question."
Nevertheless it's the question we are talking about. I submit that a militia which can not be called to arms is useless and therefore all people in the militia be registered in a national database. Once they are no longer eligible (over 45, disabled, sex change operation etc) they would be removed from that list.
" The phrase well regulated clearly is being used in the sense of having good military discipline, not in the sense of legally restricted."
That is exactly my point. If you are in the militia then you have to have good military discipline. That implies some sort of training or at a minimum being willing to take orders from a military commander of some sort. I think that the people in the militia should act like it. They should train and subject themselves to military discipline.
I agree with your sentiment. But at least saying things out loud might discourage them beforehand and shame them afterwards. I am not implying that these people have any sense of shame however.
"You're grasping at straws. Explain why the Selective Service System's structure doesn't qualify."
Because it does not include women. Also because it makes no discrimination as to physical ability to defend the country. Even quardapalegic males are required to register which conflicts with the "able bodied" bit. Clearly there needs to be a list of people who are in the militia (and therefore are allowed to own guns).
"The Constitution doesn't grant rights, only your Creator (whatever you believe it to be) can do that. The US Constitution limits the government's ability to interfere with the ability to exercise those rights."
Apparently it is you who slept through civics. The declaration of independence is not a part of the constitution nor is it the law. The constitution, the articles of confederation, and the bill of rights lay the foundation for our laws. None of them mention rights given by your creator.
"It does not say "Only the militia can own guns." The only "not" in the Second Amendment is in the part "shall not be infringed.""
No but it clearly states that a well ordered militia is the reason for your right to own guns. Those two phrases are clearly related. If they simply wanted all people to have guns they would not have included the first phrase.
"You assume that skill with firearms is more important than the number and availability of small arms to a group of people."
I assume no such thing. In fact in the modern world the idea that a bunch of pistol packing rebels being able to repel an army is beyond stupid. Ask the afghans what good all those arms did them when daisy cutters were being dropped on their asses in the middle of the night. For that matter ask the palestenians how all those AK47s are repelling the Israeli occupying army.
I am simply trying to understand your reasoning and following your train of thought. You seem to assume that the militia is a useful thing and I am trying to make sure I understand what your definition of the militia is and what the rights and the responsibilities of the militia are and of course how this militia would be used.
Did you ever write code? Did you test that code? Did you test the code by throwing in unexpected parameters and seeing how the system behaved?
Maybe we ought to the same with the legal system. Take a thousand white people and a thousand black people of varying economic levels and throw them into the system. Knowing full well that every single one of them are innocent I wonder how many will come out of the system and how many will end up in jail or on death row?
As it is now. If you are 100% absolutely innocent the best thing that can happen to you if you are arrested is that you will go broke, lose your job, and lose your family and friends. The worst thing that can happen to you is that you will die. The US legal system is horrible that way. Once you are in it you are fucked royally.
Patient: "Doctor I can't see" Doctor: "I can't do anything for you, here take this dog" Patient: "WTF? There are people who can see that can't take of a dog!"
It's a much longer and much funnier joke but that's the gist of it.
"Nope. At worst (depending on your POV), the second amendment can be read as to say that only those people are free from any laws that infringe on their ability to own a gun. There would have to be a new law to actually deny gun ownership to the other people."
Sorry I just don't get that from the original quote of the law. It seems to enumerate all people who are in the militia and nowhere does it say "all the people except such and such".
"If there were conditions to being in the militia, they would be listed in the part that was quoted. It says "all males between 18 and 45," not "all males between 18 and 45 who have been through basic training."
And yet I wonder why they included the phrase "well ordered militia". It seems to imply some sort of a structure.
"And we do. It's called Selective Service, and I had to sign up when I turned 18, just like all male US citizens."
Once again women are not subject to selective service. According to your logic they do not have the right to bear arms. Seeing as how women do have the right to have arms yet are not subject to selective service their names definately should be added to the list of militia members who can be called upon to defend the country.
Honestly a militia is useless if it can not be called up on a moments notice. The days of paul revere are over so we can't ride through the town yelling "arabs are coming, arabs are coming" but there definately should be a list of men and women who are 18 to 45 who have guns. People with guns are already armed and are probably trained well and are good shots. People without guns are not useful in the first wave of attack because they don't know how to shoot and will have to be trained. It seems like the absolute minimum requirement for being in the militia should be to be able to be contacted in case of attack.
"That means nothing, unless you're also going to say that the rest of the Bill of Rights should be limited to the 18th-century definition of "citizens"."
Since the 18th century there have been numerous laws passed to include blacks, indians and women in the rest of society. I wonder if simlar laws passed specifically to include minorities and women in the militias. For that matter I wonder if any laws have been passed to further define the makeup and the duties of the militia.
It seems like your take is that all citizens are a part of the militia whether they like it or not. Also that being in the militia has absolutely no responsibilites attached to it. No requirement for training, not for registration, not for being under the command of the president or any other military personell.
Finally I would like to know what your definition of a "well ordered militia" is as opposed to a collection oof citizens. What do you think the founding fathers meant when they said "well ordered" and why do you think they put that phrase in the second amendment?
Interesting. Only white males and females in the guard are allowed to own guns because they are in the militia.
Do the laws you quote say anything about what the responsibilty of the the militia are? For example are there any requirements to train or show up for exercizes? Also what about registration? It seems to me that a well orderwed militia would at a minimum have a member list so that they could be called into action. Maybe we whould make a list of all white males who own guns so that we can call them for service if the US is attacked.
"That is a clear cut abridgement of the free press. "
I am afraid you are profoundly misguided.
Buying advertising is commercial speech and can be regulated. If the newspaper was barred from reporting on a story before the election then it would be a first amendmend issue. You buying an ad is subject to all kinds of regulations. For example all the restrictions on alcohol and cigarette advertising.
"You can't cook Indian food? Read the freaking manual, a hundred-million people do it every day."
Yes. That's the way new skills are learned. Go buy a book, ask a friend, take a class. Anybody can learn to cook indian food and the fact that a hundred million people could do it is ample proof that this is not some mysterious process for the super genious.
"Gave up on learning to draw? Are you physically handicapped?"
No just lazy, maybe unmotivated, quite possibly untalented. Certainly nothing I would brag about.
"Go ahead and feel superior, but other people have other optional skills that you don't."
Of course they do. But the people who read and participate in a "geek" website who then publicly profess that they are unable to install an operating system should be ridiculed at every opportunity not moderated up. They ought to hang out at the knitting boards, or snowboarding boards or the "I love britney spears" web sites because that is more their speed.
"but they did not do it with "little or no trouble" unless they already had significant knowledge of Debian."
Well I disagree. I had little or no trouble installing debian the first time. I had more trouble installing openbsd the first time but even so I was able to complete the install. I don't think I am a genious or anything so if I could do it then most people of average intelligence should also be able to do it. It's not rocket science or anything.
Besides like I said you can always install lindows or xandros. You don't have to install debian to have a debian system.
"Apply economic laws: More users = More Money = More Developers."
Not in the open source world. more users mean more headaches, more whiners, more tech support and no more money.
There is nothing like a bunch of people yelling at the programmer because something they got for free does not work like they want it to. I see it all the time, hang out on any listserve and count the morons insulting the programming team because the icon is ugly some gui element behaves weird or looks weird or is in the "wrong" place. Would that whiner pitch in $50.00 hell no. Would he write some documentation? Hell no. Would he put for any effort whatsoever? Hell no. He just wants the stuff he got for free to look and feel like the stuff that costs $500.00.
More users means more inconsiderate whining morons then anything else.
What an odd and disturbing trend. People publicly admitting that they are unable to perform tasks that tens of thousands of other people have performed with little or no trouble. What is even more odd is that you get moderated up so high.
I used to get pissed off at people who would glibly and gleefully admit that "they did not understand math" or "computers confused them" as if math and computer skills were somehow optional in this world. Now I am going to have to make room in my big ass loser bag for people who are unable to install linux.
Why are people ashamed to admit that they don't know how to read and write but are perfectly happy broadcasting their ignorance about math, computers or inability to install an operating system that tens of thousands of other people have had no problems with. Are those people smarter then you? Maybe so huh?
P.S. Maybe you ought to try lindows or xandros. I hear they are very easy to install for people like you and they are based on debian.
"My mother can install win2k and get iis running without a problem, but she can't install Debian "
First of all unless your mother knows the difference between a netmask and a ski mask I highly doubt she can install windows or IIS. Windows especially windows 2000 server is royal pain in the ass to install. You have to install it and run windows update something like six times because there is not a comprehensive security update and most updates force you to download them one at a time and reboot. Last time I did it I think it took me something like five hours to install and secure the thing. I am not even counting the time it took to find out what each service did and if I could safely disable it I think that took a week working part time on it.
As for debian It's not that bad. Your mother will probably have an easier time installing lindows or xandros (both are based on debian) then windows. For me I can install debian and get it completely patched up in under an hour (longer if I am doing an over the net install which is not even possible with windows).
"Feel free to tell me setting up raid5, trunking, ldap, or nfs is easier in linux than windows....I've done both. Windows is easier. "
It all depends on if you know what you are doing or not. Certainly there is nothing magical about setting up ldap other then the fact that LDAP itself is a complex protocol that I doubt your mother knows how to install. I installed LDAP on debian and it was a breeze. I typed in apt-get openldap, it installed, asked me a series of questions which I answered and voila it was done. The hard part is knowing what your CN and DN settings are and windows does not magically implant that knowledge in your head.
"As for SSL: I don't need to imagine this, because I've done it on both windows and linux."
I set up and used IIS both professionaly and personally for along time. It got hacked then I decided I would never use it again. Since then I have been using apache and zope. Both are more useful in a thousand ways then IIS and both are more secure.
" IIS is much easier to set up and maintain when you're managing lots of virtual hosts (and waaaaay less headache when all the virtual hosts need their own ssl certs)...if you're running a serious webserver this could be useful."
I simply have a different file for each virtual domain. I include all the files in my httpd.conf. When I want to set up a new domain I simply copy an old one into a new file change a few settings and I am done. I seriously doubt clicking though endless dialog boxes is easier or takes less time. I was thinking of using one of those ISPMAN type of programs to handle all the virtual domains but after fooling around with them I decided that a GUI simply got in my way. Copying an existing file (or a skeleton) is so much faster and easier.
"I just think ignoring a competing product doesn't make the one you settled with better. You should really play with both."
I have played with both. I have also worked with both. I think you will find that 99% of all linux or apache users came from the windows world while less 1% of all windows users ever used linux. I did not start with apache I ended up with it and found out along the way that it was more useful, more stable, had more features, was easier to maintain, and was simply more fun then IIS could ever expect to be.
If you see some MS atro turfer sprouting off about how hard linux is to use (or install) then you can be pretty sure they have never used linux but almost everybody in the first world had used windows both at home and at work. The linux users avtively chose it after being fed up with windows, they certainly did not start there.
I honestly don't think it's easier to set up IIS. Installation is just as easy for both of them and setup is dirt simple if you are running debian.
In fact if you are running debian apt-get install apache will automatically configure your apache in a safe and secure manner with your web site in/var/www (a logical place). And then you can do apt-get install mod-apache-ssl and apt-get install php and also have them set up automatically for you. All with sensible defaults.
Honestly I don't know how much easier it needs to get before people will stop whining.
You can also install complete working applications like phpgroupware or midgard by typing apt-get install php-groupware. How is windows any easier then that?
Imagine trying to set up a iis webserver with SSL support and a complex application like php groupware (I am assuming similar products exists in the asp world). It can't possibly be easier then debian.
I am speaking of debian here but freebsd is similar and so are a bunch of linux distributions. By typing in a simple command they will automatically download and install any one of thousands of programs. In windows you have to locate the program, download it, unzip it, install it, and configure it. In debian you apt-get it and configure it. It's much easier.
"Seriously, are you going to get your opinion of any company from someone who quit after 3 weeks? He's probably got an attitude, or was just a bad cultural fit for Microsoft."
He probably did not like to lie so much. I heard that if you don't lie to dozen people by lunch you get fired from MS.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your arguments are silly. Sure maybe in the revelutionary war guns might have helped and even in subsequent wars guns kill off a few of the enemy but in no way are they successful in the modern world in defending your liberty.
Think about it. If all you said was true, if an armed populace could really repel a force then the afghans should have been able stop the US army. The palestenians could have thrown off the israeli occupation, the iraquis could have stopped the relentless bombing campaign against them. If molov cocktails could disable tanks then the israeli army would have no tanks left. Hell the palestenians can't even stop caterpillars with guns.
Molotov cocktails (which are not guns) and ak47s can't ever stop a determined air force or an invading army. The populace has to choose different weapons these days. The palestenians have seen the futility of handheld weapons against israeli tanks and have chosen high explosives. One day they will go to chemical and biological weapons because in reality those are the best weapons for fighting off an opressive occupying army. They are cheap, easy to manufacture and inflict tremendous damage. They are the molov cocktails of the future (perhaps the present).
" Actually, Christians are instructed that their body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit," and that we're not to defile it.
Smoking, or other destructive behavior, is disrespect and defilement."
You wouldn't know it from listening to the christian leaders. They protest abortion clinics, adult video stores, strip clubs, homosexual marriages but I have never heard any religious leader protest a beer company or a cigarette company. In fact they are usually on the side of the cigarette companies as a part of their pro business agenda.
" It takes time. There's the matter not just *what* to do, but *when* to do it. Most things run pretty much on inertia."
maybe most things run on inertia but clearly linux is not one of them. It's under very active development and improvements come at an amazing pace. Two years ago linux did not support SMP. The next version of the kernel will be avble to support more processors then most people can afford.
"Linux on the desktop as a mere replacement for Microsoft Windows seems like a waste of valuable resources, and out of character for what Linux should grow up to be. Somewhere, somehow there is something that a Linux desktop should be good for that Microsoft *cannot* compete with."
On this I agree with you 100%. Linux has a bigger and better destiny then to mimic some crappy OS that consists of stolen ideas from other operating systems. Windows is the worst thing linux can attempt to emulate.
I remain optimistic that the tens of thousands of people working in and around the OSS projects will one day stumble upon an idea that will shake the world. I look at zope, mozilla and jabber and see that it is already happening to some degree. Innovation is out there and clearly the OSS people are creative as hell.
" I often find myself in Discussions wondering why Linux hasn't taken off due its good qualities"
Just exactly what do you mean by "hasn't taken off"? Linux userbase grows by leaps and bounds every year. It has gone from a hobby OS to a major player in the server market in three years. It will make similar advances in the desktop in the next three years.
Rome wasn't built in a day you know. If you are really impatient for world dominance then I am sure lots of programmers could use your help in writing documentation and testing for bugs. Roll up your sleeves world domination is but a few years away!
What are you saying? That MS does not bribe CEOs of corporations to use windows? If so you are sorely misinformed.
MS does indeed bribe CEOs and CIOs. Sometimes it's a yatch, sometimes it's a rolex, sometimes it's a free trip or two but MS knows how to spread the bribes.
Nobody uses the BDE anymore. It's like ten years old.
Be sure to pass that lesson on to your children.
"The individuals who are members of the militia of the United States are clearly defined in US Law [findlaw.com]. Whether or not there exists list contains all and only those who qualify is a separate question."
Nevertheless it's the question we are talking about. I submit that a militia which can not be called to arms is useless and therefore all people in the militia be registered in a national database. Once they are no longer eligible (over 45, disabled, sex change operation etc) they would be removed from that list.
" The phrase well regulated clearly is being used in the sense of having good military discipline, not in the sense of legally restricted."
That is exactly my point. If you are in the militia then you have to have good military discipline. That implies some sort of training or at a minimum being willing to take orders from a military commander of some sort. I think that the people in the militia should act like it. They should train and subject themselves to military discipline.
I agree with your sentiment. But at least saying things out loud might discourage them beforehand and shame them afterwards. I am not implying that these people have any sense of shame however.
"You have a hand, two eyes and a brain. You are biologically capable of using a firearm. The rest is just legislation."
I have a dick, I am capable of raping just about any woman I see. The rest is just legislation. Right?
"You're grasping at straws. Explain why the Selective Service System's structure doesn't qualify."
Because it does not include women. Also because it makes no discrimination as to physical ability to defend the country. Even quardapalegic males are required to register which conflicts with the "able bodied" bit. Clearly there needs to be a list of people who are in the militia (and therefore are allowed to own guns).
"The Constitution doesn't grant rights, only your Creator (whatever you believe it to be) can do that. The US Constitution limits the government's ability to interfere with the ability to exercise those rights."
Apparently it is you who slept through civics. The declaration of independence is not a part of the constitution nor is it the law. The constitution, the articles of confederation, and the bill of rights lay the foundation for our laws. None of them mention rights given by your creator.
"It does not say "Only the militia can own guns." The only "not" in the Second Amendment is in the part "shall not be infringed.""
No but it clearly states that a well ordered militia is the reason for your right to own guns. Those two phrases are clearly related. If they simply wanted all people to have guns they would not have included the first phrase.
"You assume that skill with firearms is more important than the number and availability of small arms to a group of people."
I assume no such thing. In fact in the modern world the idea that a bunch of pistol packing rebels being able to repel an army is beyond stupid. Ask the afghans what good all those arms did them when daisy cutters were being dropped on their asses in the middle of the night. For that matter ask the palestenians how all those AK47s are repelling the Israeli occupying army.
I am simply trying to understand your reasoning and following your train of thought. You seem to assume that the militia is a useful thing and I am trying to make sure I understand what your definition of the militia is and what the rights and the responsibilities of the militia are and of course how this militia would be used.
Yes but are those specs covered by a patent and will microsoft publicly state they will never pursue any lawsuits.
Did you ever write code? Did you test that code? Did you test the code by throwing in unexpected parameters and seeing how the system behaved?
Maybe we ought to the same with the legal system. Take a thousand white people and a thousand black people of varying economic levels and throw them into the system. Knowing full well that every single one of them are innocent I wonder how many will come out of the system and how many will end up in jail or on death row?
As it is now. If you are 100% absolutely innocent the best thing that can happen to you if you are arrested is that you will go broke, lose your job, and lose your family and friends. The worst thing that can happen to you is that you will die. The US legal system is horrible that way. Once you are in it you are fucked royally.
"or put money into researching artificial eyes"
To paraphrase Chris Rock.
Patient: "Doctor I can't see"
Doctor: "I can't do anything for you, here take this dog"
Patient: "WTF? There are people who can see that can't take of a dog!"
It's a much longer and much funnier joke but that's the gist of it.
"Nope. At worst (depending on your POV), the second amendment can be read as to say that only those people are free from any laws that infringe on their ability to own a gun. There would have to be a new law to actually deny gun ownership to the other people."
Sorry I just don't get that from the original quote of the law. It seems to enumerate all people who are in the militia and nowhere does it say "all the people except such and such".
"If there were conditions to being in the militia, they would be listed in the part that was quoted. It says "all males between 18 and 45," not "all males between 18 and 45 who have been through basic training."
And yet I wonder why they included the phrase "well ordered militia". It seems to imply some sort of a structure.
"And we do. It's called Selective Service, and I had to sign up when I turned 18, just like all male US citizens."
Once again women are not subject to selective service. According to your logic they do not have the right to bear arms. Seeing as how women do have the right to have arms yet are not subject to selective service their names definately should be added to the list of militia members who can be called upon to defend the country.
Honestly a militia is useless if it can not be called up on a moments notice. The days of paul revere are over so we can't ride through the town yelling "arabs are coming, arabs are coming" but there definately should be a list of men and women who are 18 to 45 who have guns. People with guns are already armed and are probably trained well and are good shots. People without guns are not useful in the first wave of attack because they don't know how to shoot and will have to be trained. It seems like the absolute minimum requirement for being in the militia should be to be able to be contacted in case of attack.
"That means nothing, unless you're also going to say that the rest of the Bill of Rights should be limited to the 18th-century definition of "citizens"."
Since the 18th century there have been numerous laws passed to include blacks, indians and women in the rest of society. I wonder if simlar laws passed specifically to include minorities and women in the militias. For that matter I wonder if any laws have been passed to further define the makeup and the duties of the militia.
It seems like your take is that all citizens are a part of the militia whether they like it or not. Also that being in the militia has absolutely no responsibilites attached to it. No requirement for training, not for registration, not for being under the command of the president or any other military personell.
Finally I would like to know what your definition of a "well ordered militia" is as opposed to a collection oof citizens. What do you think the founding fathers meant when they said "well ordered" and why do you think they put that phrase in the second amendment?
Interesting. Only white males and females in the guard are allowed to own guns because they are in the militia.
Do the laws you quote say anything about what the responsibilty of the the militia are? For example are there any requirements to train or show up for exercizes? Also what about registration? It seems to me that a well orderwed militia would at a minimum have a member list so that they could be called into action. Maybe we whould make a list of all white males who own guns so that we can call them for service if the US is attacked.
"That is a clear cut abridgement of the free press. "
I am afraid you are profoundly misguided.
Buying advertising is commercial speech and can be regulated. If the newspaper was barred from reporting on a story before the election then it would be a first amendmend issue. You buying an ad is subject to all kinds of regulations. For example all the restrictions on alcohol and cigarette advertising.
Do you get it now?
"You can't cook Indian food? Read the freaking manual, a hundred-million people do it every day."
Yes. That's the way new skills are learned. Go buy a book, ask a friend, take a class. Anybody can learn to cook indian food and the fact that a hundred million people could do it is ample proof that this is not some mysterious process for the super genious.
"Gave up on learning to draw? Are you physically handicapped?"
No just lazy, maybe unmotivated, quite possibly untalented. Certainly nothing I would brag about.
"Go ahead and feel superior, but other people have other optional skills that you don't."
Of course they do. But the people who read and participate in a "geek" website who then publicly profess that they are unable to install an operating system should be ridiculed at every opportunity not moderated up. They ought to hang out at the knitting boards, or snowboarding boards or the "I love britney spears" web sites because that is more their speed.
"but they did not do it with "little or no trouble" unless they already had significant knowledge of Debian."
Well I disagree. I had little or no trouble installing debian the first time. I had more trouble installing openbsd the first time but even so I was able to complete the install. I don't think I am a genious or anything so if I could do it then most people of average intelligence should also be able to do it. It's not rocket science or anything.
Besides like I said you can always install lindows or xandros. You don't have to install debian to have a debian system.
"Apply economic laws: More users = More Money = More Developers."
Not in the open source world. more users mean more headaches, more whiners, more tech support and no more money.
There is nothing like a bunch of people yelling at the programmer because something they got for free does not work like they want it to. I see it all the time, hang out on any listserve and count the morons insulting the programming team because the icon is ugly some gui element behaves weird or looks weird or is in the "wrong" place. Would that whiner pitch in $50.00 hell no. Would he write some documentation? Hell no. Would he put for any effort whatsoever? Hell no. He just wants the stuff he got for free to look and feel like the stuff that costs $500.00.
More users means more inconsiderate whining morons then anything else.
What an odd and disturbing trend. People publicly admitting that they are unable to perform tasks that tens of thousands of other people have performed with little or no trouble. What is even more odd is that you get moderated up so high.
I used to get pissed off at people who would glibly and gleefully admit that "they did not understand math" or "computers confused them" as if math and computer skills were somehow optional in this world. Now I am going to have to make room in my big ass loser bag for people who are unable to install linux.
Why are people ashamed to admit that they don't know how to read and write but are perfectly happy broadcasting their ignorance about math, computers or inability to install an operating system that tens of thousands of other people have had no problems with. Are those people smarter then you? Maybe so huh?
P.S. Maybe you ought to try lindows or xandros. I hear they are very easy to install for people like you and they are based on debian.
"My mother can install win2k and get iis running without a problem, but she can't install Debian "
First of all unless your mother knows the difference between a netmask and a ski mask I highly doubt she can install windows or IIS. Windows especially windows 2000 server is royal pain in the ass to install. You have to install it and run windows update something like six times because there is not a comprehensive security update and most updates force you to download them one at a time and reboot. Last time I did it I think it took me something like five hours to install and secure the thing. I am not even counting the time it took to find out what each service did and if I could safely disable it I think that took a week working part time on it.
As for debian It's not that bad. Your mother will probably have an easier time installing lindows or xandros (both are based on debian) then windows. For me I can install debian and get it completely patched up in under an hour (longer if I am doing an over the net install which is not even possible with windows).
"Feel free to tell me setting up raid5, trunking, ldap, or nfs is easier in linux than windows....I've done both. Windows is easier. "
It all depends on if you know what you are doing or not. Certainly there is nothing magical about setting up ldap other then the fact that LDAP itself is a complex protocol that I doubt your mother knows how to install. I installed LDAP on debian and it was a breeze. I typed in apt-get openldap, it installed, asked me a series of questions which I answered and voila it was done. The hard part is knowing what your CN and DN settings are and windows does not magically implant that knowledge in your head.
"As for SSL: I don't need to imagine this, because I've done it on both windows and linux."
I set up and used IIS both professionaly and personally for along time. It got hacked then I decided I would never use it again. Since then I have been using apache and zope. Both are more useful in a thousand ways then IIS and both are more secure.
" IIS is much easier to set up and maintain when you're managing lots of virtual hosts (and waaaaay less headache when all the virtual hosts need their own ssl certs)...if you're running a serious webserver this could be useful."
I simply have a different file for each virtual domain. I include all the files in my httpd.conf. When I want to set up a new domain I simply copy an old one into a new file change a few settings and I am done. I seriously doubt clicking though endless dialog boxes is easier or takes less time. I was thinking of using one of those ISPMAN type of programs to handle all the virtual domains but after fooling around with them I decided that a GUI simply got in my way. Copying an existing file (or a skeleton) is so much faster and easier.
"I just think ignoring a competing product doesn't make the one you settled with better. You should really play with both."
I have played with both. I have also worked with both. I think you will find that 99% of all linux or apache users came from the windows world while less 1% of all windows users ever used linux. I did not start with apache I ended up with it and found out along the way that it was more useful, more stable, had more features, was easier to maintain, and was simply more fun then IIS could ever expect to be.
If you see some MS atro turfer sprouting off about how hard linux is to use (or install) then you can be pretty sure they have never used linux but almost everybody in the first world had used windows both at home and at work. The linux users avtively chose it after being fed up with windows, they certainly did not start there.
I honestly don't think it's easier to set up IIS. Installation is just as easy for both of them and setup is dirt simple if you are running debian.
/var/www (a logical place). And then you can do apt-get install mod-apache-ssl and apt-get install php and also have them set up automatically for you. All with sensible defaults.
In fact if you are running debian apt-get install apache will automatically configure your apache in a safe and secure manner with your web site in
Honestly I don't know how much easier it needs to get before people will stop whining.
You can also install complete working applications like phpgroupware or midgard by typing apt-get install php-groupware. How is windows any easier then that?
Imagine trying to set up a iis webserver with SSL support and a complex application like php groupware (I am assuming similar products exists in the asp world). It can't possibly be easier then debian.
I am speaking of debian here but freebsd is similar and so are a bunch of linux distributions. By typing in a simple command they will automatically download and install any one of thousands of programs. In windows you have to locate the program, download it, unzip it, install it, and configure it. In debian you apt-get it and configure it. It's much easier.
"Seriously, are you going to get your opinion of any company from someone who quit after 3 weeks? He's probably got an attitude, or was just a bad cultural fit for Microsoft."
He probably did not like to lie so much. I heard that if you don't lie to dozen people by lunch you get fired from MS.