Well, that's stupid. People who don't have an opinion shouldn't have to vote.
I should have said - nothing stops you voting for no one (ie don't write on the card at all, or write crap on it). The point is you have to vote, even if it is not for anyone. As for people that don't have an opinion shouldn't be voting, it is interesting that the percentage of people who don't vote for anyone is less than 1% for most electorates in Australia. I'd say there is significant evidence that almost everyone has an opinion.
This is also stupid. I hated Al Gore and Bush(the Environmentalist vs. the Asshole) but I really didn't want Nader in Power. Who am I going to choose. Probably the one who would do the least damage and I wouldn't even touch the one who would do the most damage or had an ideal against mine.
So that's what you do. You give preferences in the order that you like the person. If you don't like any of them at all, just leave the card blank.
If normal people can't count it, it's too complex and too easily corrupted. If only.01 of 1% of the people can count the ballots and assure the quality, they can easily create a conspiracy(like Bush's luck that his brother was gov. of Florida.)
Unlike the rest of Australia, the ACT system is strange because of the extremely low population. The system is designed to give fair preferential voting with multiple candidates in each electorate. Just about everyone in the ACT understands it because of the media blitz - corrupting it is impossible given the media has access to the raw numbers.
On the whole, computer voting is the way that things almost certainly must develop. However with large countries (ie USA or Australia) you have problems with time zones. It would make more sense to stagger the voting so that the polls close at the same time GMT across the whole nation - thus avoiding the problem of Californians (or West Australians) knowing the results before they vote.
Well given that Buchannen's preferences would probably have gone to Bush it works out. What's more interesting is that with this method, a party could field two candidtates against each other and STILL have a chance of one of them winning. Think about this situation:
Candidate A gets 40% of the vote but doesn't prefer B or C.
Candidate B gets 35% of the vote and directs all preferences to C
Candidate C gets 25% of the vote and directs all preferences to B
In a US system, A would win even though 60% of the people would have preferred B or C. In a preferential system, B would win as he is the one most people prefer in power over all the others even though A got more of the primary vote. B was the least disliked of all the candidates.
For those in the US who are used to the idea of voting for just one person, and not even having to vote - this is a very different situation:
First, all Australians MUST vote in an election. If you do not vote then you will be fined, or put in prison. This means the voter turnout and load on the system tends to be much higher.
Second, ACT elections allow you to vote preferentially. This means you not only select the first person you want, but order all the candidates in the order you'd prefer them in power. This prevents the problem in the US of Nader stealing votes from Gore (all Nader's preferences would go to Gore) and so instead of the most popular person winning, the LEAST UNPOPULAR one wins. This is a significant improvement.
Third, the system used to actually count the votes in the ACT is hellishly complex and only really understood by statisticians. I find it quite bizzare, but it seems to work.
Fourth, the ACT tends to have dozens of candidates for the positions. Partys with names like "Surprise Party" and "Party Party Party" are running and even get quite a few votes.
Fifth, less than half a million people live in the ACT so the system can really be quite inexpensive and small. The ACT itself is only a few dozen miles across so the whole logistics are incredibly differnt to the USA.
So, to summarize, the ACT elections are very different from US elections. Consider all the facts before you make a generalization about whether this would be good for all of Australia, or even the USA.
Trade secret law cannot apply to the Shared Source model for the simple reason that it is not a secret. If you read the license agreement there is no mention of trade secrets and so I'd be very sceptical of anyone who said it was.
I wasn't talking about "ideas" derived from GPL code - I was talking about code derived from GPL code, or code derived from Microsoft's code. When it comes down to it, the same ideas tend to translate to the same code (sure the variable names are different but that's about it). Microsoft knows that there would be plenty enough damage even with a GPL scare that they are being very careful.
I still think Microsoft has more to fear from the contamination problem.
Remember the exact same problem exists for Microsoft. If any of their kernel programmers become "contaminated" by GPL code (ie Linux) then they have serious problems in the CE or NT code base. In fact, I'd say the danger to Microsoft is far greater than the danger to Linux from this sort of "contamination" issue.
Microsoft has been accused of an "embrace and extend" attack on Java for years and has even lost a lawsuit on those grounds. Now they have rolled over and played dead - not shipping Java with the OS anymore and requiring users to go out and download the JVM they want.
Sun's got what they wanted and suddenly it doesn't look so good. Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.
Ah. Thanks. That kind of explains the lack of improvement in the benchmark then for dual CPUs. All it means is that the perl script ran on one CPU and MySQL on the other.
Quote about freezes: "which could have been caused by either 1) nVidia driver problem (which still has a few known SMP bugs still in the latest version) or 2) the AMD 760MP chipset."
Or a whole slew of other things like cooling, SMP problems in the IDE driver for the 760, plain bad luck that you got the 760MP both times etc. etc. Without actually nailing this down as to what specifically causes the problem you can only make VERY vague guesses about what the problem is.
Quote from compiling the kernel: "Here, we can definitely see where AMD's superior FPU and number crunching power come into play."
When did gcc actually use ANY floating point code. Does this guy actually understand what he's benchmarking? All sorts of effects can slow down a compile, from memory bandwidth to I/O bandwidth as well as CPU speed. It was nice to see the Athlon beat the P4, but what CPU was gcc optimised for when IT was compiled (just curious)?
Quote from MySQL bench: "A real surprise occurred when the single processors faced off. The Athlon not only soundly beat the P3, but actually also managed to beat the dual Athlon by a little over a minute. This does seem a bit odd because going from a single P3 system to a dual P3 system decreased the time buy a good 10 minues. This could be another example of the maturity of Intel's SMP solution versus AMD's."
It is more likely that the issue is somewhere in the I/O bandwidth chain. SQL tests tend to stress I/O bandwidth more than anything else - I'd be looking at the drivers before claiming that there are issues with the 760MP. Is MySQL multithreaded anyway so it can take advantage of dual CPUs? Most of the tests seem to show that only the OS is getting any advantage from the dual CPUs.
Quote from Blender: "It is surprising to note, however, that the Athlon, despite running 500 MHz slower than the P4, still managed to render blacksmith.blend at least a tenth of a second faster."
No, it's not surprising. Even Intel says that x86 floating point code is slow on the P4. If Blender was rewritten to use SSE-2 instructions rather than x86 FPU instructions then I'd almost guarantee a 50% improvement in P4 scores. I'm not defending the P4 here - just saying that the P4 giving cruddy results is not surprising.
Kudos to the author for the journalistic integrity to correct his error about NT and SMP. Anyone can be wrong - few journalists ever admit it.
Anyway - those are my thoughts. Debate them as you will.
It's not the subscription charges that the companies are upset about, nor is it about the cost of the subscription. Read the article again! The real problem the companies had was the fact that Microsoft changed the terms after they had fixed their budgets for the year and doing this sort of thing plays absolute hell with the bean counters.
These companys were already paying a subscription fee for their software (so they have the priviledge of upgrading whenever they want) at a fairly reasonable price (paying for the software about once every 6 years - a lot less than buying every 4 years costs).
This anger isn't about the new "subscription" model they are planning for consumer software. This is simply about changing their pricing structure without enough advance warning.
Don't want to start the smart tag thing again. I just saw USER CONTROLLED tags as the same thing as removing advertising content. The only difference is that with removal of advertising content you deprive the web site of income.
Isn't it just a little hypocritical to be advocating removing links from someone's published web content (even if they are ads) when you cry foul at adding links to someone's published web content (smart tags)?
Re:We are not "happy" with our inferior service
on
SMS vs. E-mail?
·
· Score: 2
...and the crazy thing is many other countries are going down the road of selling off all sorts of utilities in the name of a cheaper and more efficient service.
Privatization has its benefits (private companies are usually a lot more efficient than a government department) but also has it's downsides (more concern for the owners than the consumers).
Why do governments look at the USA and say they want to be just like them?
(Oh - btw, I like being in the US. My only real bitch is the utility companies)
Re:Mobile Phone pricing in the US is just ridiculo
on
SMS vs. E-mail?
·
· Score: 2
With mobile phones, you've hit exactly my point. $24.95 every three months and $0.65/min is significantly more expensive than $15.00 every three months and $0.25/min. Even if you take off the roaming thing (never understood the point of this anyhow) you are still paying $0.35/min and that's even if someone calls you.
The telcos here just haven't noticed what happened in every other country in the world when they removed the charge for incoming calls on mobile phones - usage grew to about 75% of the population. I enjoyed the phone because it allowed people to keep in touch with me, and allowed me to keep in touch with my wife for relatively little expense.
The companys here seem to be obsessed with "minutes" rather than getting the base rate down. I don't want "minutes" - I just want a phone.
As for land lines, it's mainly the FCC charges I'm talking about. I'm used to not having lots of extra taxes on communication - rather paying about US$12/month for a full service line (caller id, call waiting, diversion etc.) Again, here you seem to be paying for "extra" services like call waiting that actually cost the telco nothing.
As a point of note - you don't pay per minute calls in Australia either. You pay about $0.12 per local call. The local calling areas are significantly larger as well - usually encompassing the entire capital cities, rather than just a few exchanges. As an example, under the Australian system you'd expect any call between any two numbers in New York City to not be time charged.
Comparing the communications charges I'm paying now compared to what I was, I can assure you the US system is very much NOT a better deal. Given the economies of scale that should be possible here it's very surprising how much more people seem to be happy to pay for a substandard service.
The amusing thing about it all is that people in Australia are screaming at the telcos claiming they are being ripped off everywhere - often claiming that they are worse off than people in other countries (like the US). As soon as you actually look at the charges you realize just how wrong they really are.
On the bright side - international calls are much cheaper here if you can find the right carrier. I'm quite amused that it's cheaper for me to call Australia (9c/min) than it is to call across town (10c/min)!!
Mobile Phone pricing in the US is just ridiculous
on
SMS vs. E-mail?
·
· Score: 5
Moving from Australia to the US has been a big surprise for me, given that the US is supposed to be benefitting from a more open market in telecommunications.
In Australia I was paying about US$5 per month for a mobile phone, not paying to receive calls and paying about US$0.25/min for outgoing calls. Given that I don't use the phone that much I was more than happy with that price. I could go anywhere in Australia with that phone and have coverage - all for that one price. I took that phone to Italy and STILL had coverage without even talking to a company in Italy.
Coming to the US, I find it impossible to get a phone for less than SIX TIMES that price, and find that I can't go to Europe or anywhere and expect to get coverage without getting a totally new phone. I even find that I have to pay for incoming calls. No way in hell I'm going to get a phone here from any company. I don't care - the telcos here just don't have any idea what is possible.
The "free market" has screwed people in the US so badly that they don't even notice it any more. Even the cost of land lines is higher, lower quality and so hideously complex in the billing that it is absolutely impossible to figure out who you are paying for what.
To any American who thinks they have it good, think again. The telcos are screwing you for at least 2 to 3 times what you would pay for a BETTER service in any other country.
What they need to do then is get it into the Linux Standards Base, start a program like "Made for Linux", or even get one of the vendors to start "Made for Red Hat Linux" style branding.
Without something like this it's hard to force devs to actually follow the rules.
I don't want to get started on a Linux vs Windows flame - right now I don't care. What makes a good Windows application good is the UI, and Linux need a document like the following:
I know most Windows apps (even from Microsoft) don't follow this exactly, but having the document means that at least a new user has the chance of being able to sit down at a brand new application and used it sensibly - without having to click all over the place.
That's an interesting point. I wonder how it will^H^H^H^H would have worked? I guess when I get RC1 I'll find out.
I know in Office XP there is the 'Options...' tag at the bottom of the menu, but I didn't see it there on the screenshots.
I'm concerned about MS shipping tags with the browser... even disabled ones. I like the technology and its potential, just (as someone else pointed out) the combination of MS and technology does tend to lead to abuse.
I guess it comes down to how should you feel when a bad company invents good technology? Personally I like WinXP as a core OS (ignoring the GUI). I like most of BackOffice. I even get along fairly well with Office itself. I just don't like some of the business practices that you get with it. If I didn't know who made things, I would prefer to use Windows+Office+BackOffice+DevStudio over anything available on Linux. Knowing where it comes from gives the dilemma of depriving yourself by depriving MS or helping MS by helping yourself.
Hell of a position. I tend to help myself, and advocate the technology when I like it. I choose to help MS in the hope that it will end up for the greater good.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but we don't have prisons to "accommodate" 50% of the population.
Sure, but you've got a government that will happily take the fines from 50% of the population.
Well, that's stupid. People who don't have an opinion shouldn't have to vote.
.01 of 1% of the people can count the ballots and assure the quality, they can easily create a conspiracy(like Bush's luck that his brother was gov. of Florida.)
I should have said - nothing stops you voting for no one (ie don't write on the card at all, or write crap on it). The point is you have to vote, even if it is not for anyone. As for people that don't have an opinion shouldn't be voting, it is interesting that the percentage of people who don't vote for anyone is less than 1% for most electorates in Australia. I'd say there is significant evidence that almost everyone has an opinion.
This is also stupid. I hated Al Gore and Bush(the Environmentalist vs. the Asshole) but I really didn't want Nader in Power. Who am I going to choose. Probably the one who would do the least damage and I wouldn't even touch the one who would do the most damage or had an ideal against mine.
So that's what you do. You give preferences in the order that you like the person. If you don't like any of them at all, just leave the card blank.
If normal people can't count it, it's too complex and too easily corrupted. If only
Unlike the rest of Australia, the ACT system is strange because of the extremely low population. The system is designed to give fair preferential voting with multiple candidates in each electorate. Just about everyone in the ACT understands it because of the media blitz - corrupting it is impossible given the media has access to the raw numbers.
On the whole, computer voting is the way that things almost certainly must develop. However with large countries (ie USA or Australia) you have problems with time zones. It would make more sense to stagger the voting so that the polls close at the same time GMT across the whole nation - thus avoiding the problem of Californians (or West Australians) knowing the results before they vote.
Well given that Buchannen's preferences would probably have gone to Bush it works out. What's more interesting is that with this method, a party could field two candidtates against each other and STILL have a chance of one of them winning. Think about this situation:
Candidate A gets 40% of the vote but doesn't prefer B or C.
Candidate B gets 35% of the vote and directs all preferences to C
Candidate C gets 25% of the vote and directs all preferences to B
In a US system, A would win even though 60% of the people would have preferred B or C. In a preferential system, B would win as he is the one most people prefer in power over all the others even though A got more of the primary vote. B was the least disliked of all the candidates.
For those in the US who are used to the idea of voting for just one person, and not even having to vote - this is a very different situation:
First, all Australians MUST vote in an election. If you do not vote then you will be fined, or put in prison. This means the voter turnout and load on the system tends to be much higher.
Second, ACT elections allow you to vote preferentially. This means you not only select the first person you want, but order all the candidates in the order you'd prefer them in power. This prevents the problem in the US of Nader stealing votes from Gore (all Nader's preferences would go to Gore) and so instead of the most popular person winning, the LEAST UNPOPULAR one wins. This is a significant improvement.
Third, the system used to actually count the votes in the ACT is hellishly complex and only really understood by statisticians. I find it quite bizzare, but it seems to work.
Fourth, the ACT tends to have dozens of candidates for the positions. Partys with names like "Surprise Party" and "Party Party Party" are running and even get quite a few votes.
Fifth, less than half a million people live in the ACT so the system can really be quite inexpensive and small. The ACT itself is only a few dozen miles across so the whole logistics are incredibly differnt to the USA.
So, to summarize, the ACT elections are very different from US elections. Consider all the facts before you make a generalization about whether this would be good for all of Australia, or even the USA.
Two things:
i) Voting in Australia is compulsory. If you don't vote you can go to prison.
ii) Voting is always on a Saturday, not a weekday.
Everquest, which I am completely addicted to
I guess that's where all his coding time has gone then. This game is one of the biggest time wasters around, but for some reason it's a lot of fun.
Trade secret law cannot apply to the Shared Source model for the simple reason that it is not a secret. If you read the license agreement there is no mention of trade secrets and so I'd be very sceptical of anyone who said it was.
I wasn't talking about "ideas" derived from GPL code - I was talking about code derived from GPL code, or code derived from Microsoft's code. When it comes down to it, the same ideas tend to translate to the same code (sure the variable names are different but that's about it). Microsoft knows that there would be plenty enough damage even with a GPL scare that they are being very careful.
I still think Microsoft has more to fear from the contamination problem.
Remember the exact same problem exists for Microsoft. If any of their kernel programmers become "contaminated" by GPL code (ie Linux) then they have serious problems in the CE or NT code base. In fact, I'd say the danger to Microsoft is far greater than the danger to Linux from this sort of "contamination" issue.
Microsft is saying that if Ximian uses any of Microsoft's code (ie .NET runtime, libraries) then they are going to have licensing issues.
Ximian is saying that they aren't going to use any of this code so there won't be issues.
ZDNet is making the whole thing muddy so they get all the Slashdot effect and sell more advertising.
Note that both Microsoft and Ximian are corret here.
Microsoft has been accused of an "embrace and extend" attack on Java for years and has even lost a lawsuit on those grounds. Now they have rolled over and played dead - not shipping Java with the OS anymore and requiring users to go out and download the JVM they want.
Sun's got what they wanted and suddenly it doesn't look so good. Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.
Ah. Thanks. That kind of explains the lack of improvement in the benchmark then for dual CPUs. All it means is that the perl script ran on one CPU and MySQL on the other.
Quote about freezes: "which could have been caused by either 1) nVidia driver problem (which still has a few known SMP bugs still in the latest version) or 2) the AMD 760MP chipset."
Or a whole slew of other things like cooling, SMP problems in the IDE driver for the 760, plain bad luck that you got the 760MP both times etc. etc. Without actually nailing this down as to what specifically causes the problem you can only make VERY vague guesses about what the problem is.
Quote from compiling the kernel: "Here, we can definitely see where AMD's superior FPU and number crunching power come into play."
When did gcc actually use ANY floating point code. Does this guy actually understand what he's benchmarking? All sorts of effects can slow down a compile, from memory bandwidth to I/O bandwidth as well as CPU speed. It was nice to see the Athlon beat the P4, but what CPU was gcc optimised for when IT was compiled (just curious)?
Quote from MySQL bench: "A real surprise occurred when the single processors faced off. The Athlon not only soundly beat the P3, but actually also managed to beat the dual Athlon by a little over a minute. This does seem a bit odd because going from a single P3 system to a dual P3 system decreased the time buy a good 10 minues. This could be another example of the maturity of Intel's SMP solution versus AMD's."
It is more likely that the issue is somewhere in the I/O bandwidth chain. SQL tests tend to stress I/O bandwidth more than anything else - I'd be looking at the drivers before claiming that there are issues with the 760MP. Is MySQL multithreaded anyway so it can take advantage of dual CPUs? Most of the tests seem to show that only the OS is getting any advantage from the dual CPUs.
Quote from Blender: "It is surprising to note, however, that the Athlon, despite running 500 MHz slower than the P4, still managed to render blacksmith.blend at least a tenth of a second faster."
No, it's not surprising. Even Intel says that x86 floating point code is slow on the P4. If Blender was rewritten to use SSE-2 instructions rather than x86 FPU instructions then I'd almost guarantee a 50% improvement in P4 scores. I'm not defending the P4 here - just saying that the P4 giving cruddy results is not surprising.
Kudos to the author for the journalistic integrity to correct his error about NT and SMP. Anyone can be wrong - few journalists ever admit it.
Anyway - those are my thoughts. Debate them as you will.
This is interesting. One of my old workmates used to say a lot:
"There are who sorts of code - code that is so complex that there are no obvious bugs and code that is so simple that there are obviously no bugs".
Wise words...
(blush)
Thanks for the correction. I'll just hide in my hole now.
Yup - exactly right.
It's not the subscription charges that the companies are upset about, nor is it about the cost of the subscription. Read the article again! The real problem the companies had was the fact that Microsoft changed the terms after they had fixed their budgets for the year and doing this sort of thing plays absolute hell with the bean counters.
These companys were already paying a subscription fee for their software (so they have the priviledge of upgrading whenever they want) at a fairly reasonable price (paying for the software about once every 6 years - a lot less than buying every 4 years costs).
This anger isn't about the new "subscription" model they are planning for consumer software. This is simply about changing their pricing structure without enough advance warning.
I can never spell that word. Doh.
Don't want to start the smart tag thing again. I just saw USER CONTROLLED tags as the same thing as removing advertising content. The only difference is that with removal of advertising content you deprive the web site of income.
Isn't it just a little hypocritical to be advocating removing links from someone's published web content (even if they are ads) when you cry foul at adding links to someone's published web content (smart tags)?
...and the crazy thing is many other countries are going down the road of selling off all sorts of utilities in the name of a cheaper and more efficient service.
Privatization has its benefits (private companies are usually a lot more efficient than a government department) but also has it's downsides (more concern for the owners than the consumers).
Why do governments look at the USA and say they want to be just like them?
(Oh - btw, I like being in the US. My only real bitch is the utility companies)
With mobile phones, you've hit exactly my point. $24.95 every three months and $0.65/min is significantly more expensive than $15.00 every three months and $0.25/min. Even if you take off the roaming thing (never understood the point of this anyhow) you are still paying $0.35/min and that's even if someone calls you.
The telcos here just haven't noticed what happened in every other country in the world when they removed the charge for incoming calls on mobile phones - usage grew to about 75% of the population. I enjoyed the phone because it allowed people to keep in touch with me, and allowed me to keep in touch with my wife for relatively little expense.
The companys here seem to be obsessed with "minutes" rather than getting the base rate down. I don't want "minutes" - I just want a phone.
As for land lines, it's mainly the FCC charges I'm talking about. I'm used to not having lots of extra taxes on communication - rather paying about US$12/month for a full service line (caller id, call waiting, diversion etc.) Again, here you seem to be paying for "extra" services like call waiting that actually cost the telco nothing.
As a point of note - you don't pay per minute calls in Australia either. You pay about $0.12 per local call. The local calling areas are significantly larger as well - usually encompassing the entire capital cities, rather than just a few exchanges. As an example, under the Australian system you'd expect any call between any two numbers in New York City to not be time charged.
Comparing the communications charges I'm paying now compared to what I was, I can assure you the US system is very much NOT a better deal. Given the economies of scale that should be possible here it's very surprising how much more people seem to be happy to pay for a substandard service.
The amusing thing about it all is that people in Australia are screaming at the telcos claiming they are being ripped off everywhere - often claiming that they are worse off than people in other countries (like the US). As soon as you actually look at the charges you realize just how wrong they really are.
On the bright side - international calls are much cheaper here if you can find the right carrier. I'm quite amused that it's cheaper for me to call Australia (9c/min) than it is to call across town (10c/min)!!
Moving from Australia to the US has been a big surprise for me, given that the US is supposed to be benefitting from a more open market in telecommunications.
In Australia I was paying about US$5 per month for a mobile phone, not paying to receive calls and paying about US$0.25/min for outgoing calls. Given that I don't use the phone that much I was more than happy with that price. I could go anywhere in Australia with that phone and have coverage - all for that one price. I took that phone to Italy and STILL had coverage without even talking to a company in Italy.
Coming to the US, I find it impossible to get a phone for less than SIX TIMES that price, and find that I can't go to Europe or anywhere and expect to get coverage without getting a totally new phone. I even find that I have to pay for incoming calls. No way in hell I'm going to get a phone here from any company. I don't care - the telcos here just don't have any idea what is possible.
The "free market" has screwed people in the US so badly that they don't even notice it any more. Even the cost of land lines is higher, lower quality and so hideously complex in the billing that it is absolutely impossible to figure out who you are paying for what.
To any American who thinks they have it good, think again. The telcos are screwing you for at least 2 to 3 times what you would pay for a BETTER service in any other country.
What they need to do then is get it into the Linux Standards Base, start a program like "Made for Linux", or even get one of the vendors to start "Made for Red Hat Linux" style branding.
Without something like this it's hard to force devs to actually follow the rules.
I don't want to get started on a Linux vs Windows flame - right now I don't care. What makes a good Windows application good is the UI, and Linux need a document like the following:
r l= /library/en-us/dnwue/html/welcome.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
I know most Windows apps (even from Microsoft) don't follow this exactly, but having the document means that at least a new user has the chance of being able to sit down at a brand new application and used it sensibly - without having to click all over the place.
Ooohhh. Rather a class system you chaps have over there! Wow.
That's an interesting point. I wonder how it will^H^H^H^H would have worked? I guess when I get RC1 I'll find out.
I know in Office XP there is the 'Options...' tag at the bottom of the menu, but I didn't see it there on the screenshots.
I'm concerned about MS shipping tags with the browser... even disabled ones. I like the technology and its potential, just (as someone else pointed out) the combination of MS and technology does tend to lead to abuse.
I guess it comes down to how should you feel when a bad company invents good technology? Personally I like WinXP as a core OS (ignoring the GUI). I like most of BackOffice. I even get along fairly well with Office itself. I just don't like some of the business practices that you get with it. If I didn't know who made things, I would prefer to use Windows+Office+BackOffice+DevStudio over anything available on Linux. Knowing where it comes from gives the dilemma of depriving yourself by depriving MS or helping MS by helping yourself.
Hell of a position. I tend to help myself, and advocate the technology when I like it. I choose to help MS in the hope that it will end up for the greater good.
...it must be late. I'm raving.