'spect you're right, but reading down, yours was the first condescending answer that also offered no help.
In the engineering fields I'm experienced in, I find newbie questions produce alternative answers from other people that I've not come across before...
In the engineering fields I am experienced in (software and embedded systems), I usually find newbie questions gathering answers from people working in the fields I would rather prefer never being involved (Windows GUI development, marketing, being a high school dropout, etc.)
And a horrible delay when anything is started. And no security updates. And no way to install anything. And no support for proprietary video drivers. And unlikely to have working power management, combined with horrendous boot time.
I'm not sure about the security aspect so much, but on the performance side, if everything is running over a local LAN, then that shouldn't be a problem with only 30 machines.
You are stupid.
I would imagine there are solutions that can address most security concerns as well.
Scratch that, you are a dangerous idiot. Kill all your friends, then yourself.
The only solution to a security problem of having Windows full access to everything that is supposed to run Linux, is not running Linux under control of Windows in the first place. And killing everyone who proposes something that stupid.
Thee is no legitimate reason for using Linux in a VM, other than being a loyalist of the OS you run it under. For operating systems other than Windows, VMs are only useful for testing, development and reverse engineering.
Of course, this also means thet there is never a reason for using Linux under Linux in VM, or Linux under VMWare ESX -- there are superior environments such as vserver, openvz and others. Everyone who does this, does it out of ignorance, and deserves a title of VMWare jockey.
Also note that Communists are not getting much of the vote - only hopeless idealists vote for them.
Communist party in modern Russia has very little to do with Communist ideas and often associates with Nationalists (thus pissing off all intellectuals and ethnically non-Russian people), however it's still second most popular party just by association. The third place by popularity is split between Socialists (SR or "Just Russia") and weirdos (LDPR) that are basically bullshit-slinging clowns when it comes to any proclaimed ideology.
On the other hand, all prominently pro-Capitalism and Libertarian parties have truly microscopic amount of support (and this is why they whine to all their friends abroad before and after every election).
It's certainly more than a half of Russia (and even more if you count other ex-USSR countries) that sees dissolution of USSR as a terrible mistake, and Capitalism as the wrong direction. If it was "truly democratic" (and not just a balance of power between rich oligarchs and incompletely-corrupt politicians who refuse to destroy oligarchs but keep them in check), it would be back to USSR already.
I don't think, there are many people in US who truly realize just how much of what you are told is bullshit. Certainly I wouldn't know if I was born here. It's not just what you recognize as "media". It's things that wormed their way into public consciousness by being the only depiction of ideas available. I would say, all Americans "knowledge" of alternatives to Capitalism are about as media-induced as depictions of pirates and ninjas -- the popular image of pirates being based on one actor in a movie, and ninjas... pretty much out of nothing but likely through a tradition of actors playing assassins in Japanese theater being dressed in black uniform used by stage hands (as in "this person isn't really here").
Absolutely. As a social system it was unsustainable.
Even USSR implementation of Socialism sustained itself pretty well for over 70 years, across various governments that made all kinds of stupid mistakes unrelated to the ideas of Capitalism and Communism. There is absolutely no evidence that is is "unsustainable", other than the fact that it was eventually destroyed, however since all social and economic systems are eventually destroyed, this is irrelevant.
"Communism is unsustainable" is a propaganda formula that is based on a dogma that claims, people can not do anything useful unless they are forced to do so under the pain of death, or by the greed. In its turn it is based on two religious beliefs -- about fear of Hell and eternal torture being the force that keeps people from sinning all the time (the list sins includes sloth), and about all people by their nature being sinners (and therefore motivated by greed), lacking virtues unless they dedicate their whole lives to service of God.
Like all beliefs about human nature that are based on religion, they are completely wrong -- humans evolved to form a healthy society, and therefore they already have a healthy balance of co-operative and competitive tendencies. This happened long before the invention of Capitalism, currency, property and government, and it's nothing short of insane to reduce humans' motivation to greed, powerlust and fear of death. Current Capitalist society over-emphasizes those forms of motivation, so almost everyone at the top of it is mentally deficient, with those motivations trumping everything else. Those people obviously want themselves to be recognized as "normal" humans, however in reality not only they are sick and dangerous, a society can not survive if it was possible for the rest of population to have such motivation.
Communism as a social system is based on the idea that in the absence of a threat, or recognition of power over other humans as an accomplishment, people would be motivated by their own desire to co-operate and participate in the functioning society. In a society that achieved abundance of material goods (that, I believe, mankind as a whole already did, in the end of 20th century), such society would be optimal because people would not waste their efforts and resources on damaging or destroying each other, but abundance would make it very easy and safe to develop new things without any additional motivation of greed and fear. However since Communism as a political movement started in 19th century, and the first government of Communists appeared in early 20th century in a very poor, war-devastated Russia, there had to be a compromise with government forcing and encouraging co-operation on people in the absence of abundance. Therefore Socialism, not Communism, had to be implemented, as only a society that promotes co-operation can reach the state when Communism is possible. I see no flaw is this decision -- it contradicts the idea of what is and isn't a "right" or "property" under US-style Capitalism, but those ideas are not even shared by all Capitalist societies. In USSR, Socialism managed to degenerate into Stalinism, however as it was clearly seen at the time after Stalin's death, that it was capable of returning to its intended direction once the deviation is over. Brezhnev's "Developed Socialism" was another (milder) deviation of the same kind, and there was no reason to expect that it would not be over if Gorbachev's Perestroika was not derailed into a Libertarian and pro-Capitalism mess that it was. The end of USSR was an accident -- there are many countries with all forms of government that were dissolved or had their social system changed in a similar circumstances. Capitalist countries aren't any more stable than this, Russian Empire certainly was not before Communists, as they succeeded in taking it over in the first place.
Just the fact that such society survived through almost the whole 20th century, shows that government enforcing greed and competiti
The soft dictatorship of the late 70ies and 80ies was a result of financial difficulties. That was when the people in power realized that the system cannot be sustained indefinitely and there's a need for smooth transition to capitalism.
You can't have "financial difficulties" in a country that is run as a giant nonprofit -- there is no place to lose money in the first place. This is just not possible -- not until there is some massive shortage of natural resources or population losing capability to work so production is lost, however neither of those things would be cured by Capitalism.
USSR fell when the government was no longer satisfactory to the society - and that happened because the decay of the society, built into the structure of USSR's socialism, damaged the country so much that there wasn't enough food to get by.
There was definitely more than enough food there. Anti-USSR propaganda made plenty of effort to paint "starving Russians" picture, however it was completely baseless, food lacked variety for decades, but there would be heads rolling (well, not literally, but there would be people shot) if government allowed shortages, or anything unhealthy was allowed into the system. The only thing that resembles a "food shortage" was a shortage of sugar around 1989 (I may be a year off in either direction) -- something that happens in Russia and ex-USSR countries every time when people expect a problem in economy in the future, and try to stock up on something useful, valuable and potential material for making homemade alcohol drinks. That was well into the "liberalization of economy" that scared the poplation, and I am sure, no sane person would expect a genuine society-destroying food shortage to be limited to sugar.
Perestroika was not initiated by the population or society as a whole -- if anything, all dissidents' opinions were ignored, and they were not ever invited to be a part of the process. The problem was the same as with Khruschev -- Communist Party leaders making arbitrary decisions. In that case Gorbachev initiated long-needed liberalization, but had absolutely no idea how to implement it beyond proclaiming political freedoms, he would do better if he just stopped at that because that was the only area where he was somewhat competent. Economy was in a mild recession in late 80's (less of a recession than the rest of the world had a decade earlier), but it was a combination of irresponsible experimentation with economy, destruction of established links between USSR members, and attempted implementation of Libertarian ideas that caused a massive looting and collapse of early 90's.
I remember it very well because I have left in the middle of collapse, at the end of 1993, almost two years after USSR dissolution.
The Russians had very little chance grasping anything after the regime broke down, what with the half a millenium spent in real or virtual serfdom, first to samoderzhavie, then to the communist party, and now to the Russian style of government that is almost, but not quite entirely unlike samoderzhavie again.
So they are animals just like blacks and Arabs? I think, we have heard that crap already from other people.
My folks were in a better starting position, but we still have a long way to go and we're not ashamed to admit it (well, at least some of us).
Most immigrants to US are regretting ever stepping into a continent-wide snake pit you call a country, but they are too poor and mentally exhausted for another move across the globe, so they invent elaborate fantasies to justify their choice to come here. If you need any examples, just look at the Jewish immigrants from ex-USSR. All of them, myself included, faced mild discrimination based on their ethnicity not unlike Hispanics in US. Tiny percentage of them believed in any god, leave alone cared for any form of Judaism. Just look how most of them convinced themselves that they believe in an omniscient, but for some reason racist magical man in the sky despite 15-20 years of education absolutely incompatible with that idea. Want to know why they are so intellectually impotent? This is why, they have torn their brains apart with those delusions! It's painful for me to see those wrecks of human beings, especially considering that most of my relatives are in this category.
I do not suffer from those problems -- I came here because industry and science in all ex-USSR countries were destroyed, and remained in shambles for at least a decade. My choice to move into a country with functioning industry and dysfunctional society was justified despite being painful and despite my rejection of the most fundamental positions of its poisonous ideology.
You have the right to remain bitter, and I'm not questioning that,
I am not bitter. I hate you, I hate your masters, I hate your ideology, and I am perfectly content with my hatred toward people, organizations and ideologies who richly deserve it. It's your stupid American idea, a part of your brainwashing, that hatred is wrong yet somehow fighting enemies is good -- my position is the exact opposite, there is nothing wrong with rejecting and opposing something terrible and keeping it from entering your mind, but it would be a truly worthless kind of person if he can accomplish more by destroying what he hates rather than by building something he likes. That's right, in my mind all your heroes, politicians, criminals, businessmen and other "cool" or "powerful" guys are worthless and all those uppity engineers, scientists, mathematicians, artists and other geeks, are the best of the whole mankind -- how is that for a culture?
I find it ironic that despite this, you and your masters, along with everyone else, benefit from my work more than from any person that ever liked you or agreed with you. This became possible because I didn't have a single trace of greed in my motivation to study or to become an engineer -- I am free from the thing that taints your whole society, poisons your thoughts, destroys your education and derails your efforts. I may be talented and there are various circumstances of my life that ended up improving me in various ways, but it was purity of my motivation to study, that made my upbringing fundamentally different from all of you. It could not ever be done in US. It can't now be done anywhere. No one can reproduce the advantage I had because its source, a society that does not motivate people by greed and powerlust, is destroyed.
It was possible under a system that was destroyed by people like you. At some point it will become possible again, but it's very unlikely that anyone alive now, will ever see it. But when it will happen, modern Capitalism will be seen as something just
Oh I know this, I just use the opportunity as a public service to point out what a giant fail his precious really is. You see its in a way like the failure of communism. You see the communists never could figure out how to fix the "busted shitter" problem and neither can Linux. Everyone wants to be the artist, nobody wants to be the guy that cleans toilets so they don't get cleaned. The communists had to actually order soldiers to do "potato duty" just to get someone to do the shit jobs nobody wanted but Linux don't have that luxury so what you get is a facade that covers a tarpaper shack with a busted outhouse attached. Sure it looks good on the outside but actually try living in it and its a stinking drafty about to fall over mess, and that is exactly what Linux is.
Are there supposed to be some actual arguments in this shit?
Look at the links, more vulnerabilities rated severe than Win 2K8
The definition of "vulnerability" is different for open source software -- all bugs are listed as vulnerabilities unless someone proven that a bug has no security implications. What no one bothers doing because it's easier to fix the bug, distribute the fix, and return to doing something productive.
Microsoft, on the other hand, only acknowledges security bugs when they are exploited by someone.
, Dell is losing money on every Ubuntu sale (Alex thinks they can make it up with volume, funny huh?)
Why should anyone care about Dell money, or how much do they lose in Microsoft bribes when they don't sell Windows? For all I care, Dell management can commit a mass suicide.
and even they can't get enough QA to get a lousy dozen devices to have their drivers checked before the next release makes a big old stinky all over them, so they have to run their own repos. Linux is Windows 98, nothing more. Its a CLO OS with a GUI bolted on that doesn't really work well, has shitty drivers, and if anything goes wrong you have to go CLI just to work on the POS.
Repeating the lies often, does not make them true.
Oh, I understand it just fine. Some guy read a book on object-oriented programming and thought, this is how software "ought" to be developed, and he should better write a "framework" for it because in his mind, no one seemed to follow those great ideas. Then framework became married to $deity-awful communications mechanisms (starting from DDE).
The truth is, it's a solution for a nonexistent problem, and only people completely ignorant of data formats and network protocols may think, it provides anything valuable.
The practices you have listed are actually good C++ programming (except "custom string and array classes", whatever that means). Just because there is a bad library bundled with the language, it does not mean that everyone must prefer it over the native libc, it is useful only when it fits the purpose of the program.
So you want to sell your products in the US to people who follow the capitalist system. They will buy your products because they want to eventually earn more money and use your products to do so.
If I lived "to sell products" I would kill myself already. I develop technology, something that is valuable regardless of the social or economical system.
What a hypocrite you are.
There is nothing hypocritical about living in a system I hate and despise. I have left ex-USSR because it adopted a system that I also hate and despise, plus in a process of doing so they destroyed all infrastructure for technology development, thus making my work pointless and my abilities useless.
Don't run away from it, you being in the US and part of US economy support the US capitalist system.
US or capitalism did not became stronger because of my efforts. Technology however improved for everyone, and its development is a part of a process that is much older than US.
Explain why your opinion is relevant here. I am talking about a general trend.
This is a general trend. The whole top of your society belongs in a mental asylum.
Yeah.. I heard the MIT in Moscow is pretty cool.
MIPT actually.
Yeah.. the KGB archives. That is the most trustworthy source in the world. Amazing... You are so deluded.
Oh, the famous "they are lying!" claim. Through the whole history, government services' archives were consistently accurate when it came to recording their own actions, regardless of what those services were doing. Those people were proud of what they were doing, and the last thing they cared about is how their work will be evaluated by their enemies.
Certainly they are more trustworthy than people who were paid to write propaganda, or one mediocre but extremely (and rightfully) pissed off fiction writer. Definitely more trustworthy than people who made detailed claims about things they could not possibly obtain any information about -- what means, all American "historians" until 90's.
Are there cases where dragging physical metaphors into computing is brutally-old-and-busted? Sure; but making MP3 players with UIs consisting of elaborate(but non-resizeable) bitmaps renditions of 1970s stereo gear was a moronic idea back in the 90s, just as it is now. Outside of agonizing over-literal nonsense like that, 'real life inspirations' seem to take two forms, neither obviously outmoded:
There is one important change that happened with media players the interface kept its "1970s stereo gear" look but was evolving in various ways -- "Stop" button disappeared, and "Play" button now shares space with "Pause". This reflects improved understanding of playing media files -- there is no point specifically telling a player that you are not going to resume playing something, and there is no additional effort necessary to combine two mutually-exclusive buttons. The idea of playlist (and "Previous"/"Next" button navigating it) had no equivalent in album-based media, and neither was "Stop playing after this song", automatic search for lyrics, etc. The idea of "Previous"/"Reverse"/"Play"/"Fast Forward"/"Next" control buttons in a row marked by language-neutral symbols, however, stayed the same, and even "infected" keyboards because it was a good idea to begin with.
1. Remnants in name only: Your email client likely still has an 'inbox' and an 'outbox' because, at some point, somebody actually had two boxes on their desk. Guess what, it doesn't matter. The computerized abstractions have gained so many features(instant search, threading, sort-by-whatever-you-want, etc, etc.) that they bear almost no relation to their physical counterpart. They have to be called something, so the legacy name is harmless enough.
Outbox disappeared at the point when it became unnecessary because instant sending became possible. On the other hand, multiple folders with automatic sorting had no paper mail equivalent, they appeared after manually-sorted ones but became useful after mail clients (and some servers) started auto-applying filters.
COM is a stupid idea, this is why no one outside Windows does anything like that. The only reason why it exists on Windows is because Microsoft developers believed, it opens some kind of bright new object-handling future that they will be lords and masters of. It doesn't, the whole approach is stupid and dangerous, and it must be abandoned along with everything else Microsoft originated.
US has created the best economic incentive system in the world.
The best incentive that seems to only work for sociopaths.
That is why people come to the US.. to earn more money.
_I_ came to US not "to earn money" but to develop technology after US-worshipping "libertarians" destroyed my country. I am lucky that they have destroyed it after I got excellent education, because if I lived in US, I would never have a chance to get anything even remotely resembling one that I got in the last years of USSR.
Oh wow, a web site of some nutcase, that cites works of fiction among its sources, lumps together victims of natural disasters with political executions and deaths in prisons, and follows each and every propaganda trick ever used against USSR government in general and Stalin in particular.
If you have any data to dispute that (I mean.. things that exist in reality) show it.. or shut the fuck up.
Everything based on NKVD/KGB archives, that were opened in 90's, but none of the US propaganda workers were interested. If anything, the bureaucrats counted and reported everything very well.
Slashdot Mirror
OpenVZ and LXC are not virtualization mechanisms, they are host compartmentalization, the right way of imitating multiple hosts.
'spect you're right, but reading down, yours was the first condescending answer that also offered no help.
In the engineering fields I'm experienced in, I find newbie questions produce alternative answers from other people that I've not come across before...
In the engineering fields I am experienced in (software and embedded systems), I usually find newbie questions gathering answers from people working in the fields I would rather prefer never being involved (Windows GUI development, marketing, being a high school dropout, etc.)
Citrix product, do not use.
It's called take a fucking CS course at your community college or ask on the Ubuntu forums full of dimbulbs who think "ls -a" is a lifehack.
Why would you take a CS course for an Admin problem? I think you don't know the first thing about computers.
Because IT and MIS courses are usually Windows-only.
And a horrible delay when anything is started. And no security updates. And no way to install anything. And no support for proprietary video drivers. And unlikely to have working power management, combined with horrendous boot time.
I'm not sure about the security aspect so much, but on the performance side, if everything is running over a local LAN, then that shouldn't be a problem with only 30 machines.
You are stupid.
I would imagine there are solutions that can address most security concerns as well.
Scratch that, you are a dangerous idiot. Kill all your friends, then yourself.
The only solution to a security problem of having Windows full access to everything that is supposed to run Linux, is not running Linux under control of Windows in the first place. And killing everyone who proposes something that stupid.
Thee is no legitimate reason for using Linux in a VM, other than being a loyalist of the OS you run it under. For operating systems other than Windows, VMs are only useful for testing, development and reverse engineering.
Of course, this also means thet there is never a reason for using Linux under Linux in VM, or Linux under VMWare ESX -- there are superior environments such as vserver, openvz and others. Everyone who does this, does it out of ignorance, and deserves a title of VMWare jockey.
Also note that Communists are not getting much of the vote - only hopeless idealists vote for them.
Communist party in modern Russia has very little to do with Communist ideas and often associates with Nationalists (thus pissing off all intellectuals and ethnically non-Russian people), however it's still second most popular party just by association. The third place by popularity is split between Socialists (SR or "Just Russia") and weirdos (LDPR) that are basically bullshit-slinging clowns when it comes to any proclaimed ideology.
On the other hand, all prominently pro-Capitalism and Libertarian parties have truly microscopic amount of support (and this is why they whine to all their friends abroad before and after every election).
It's certainly more than a half of Russia (and even more if you count other ex-USSR countries) that sees dissolution of USSR as a terrible mistake, and Capitalism as the wrong direction. If it was "truly democratic" (and not just a balance of power between rich oligarchs and incompletely-corrupt politicians who refuse to destroy oligarchs but keep them in check), it would be back to USSR already.
I don't think, there are many people in US who truly realize just how much of what you are told is bullshit. Certainly I wouldn't know if I was born here.
It's not just what you recognize as "media". It's things that wormed their way into public consciousness by being the only depiction of ideas available. I would say, all Americans "knowledge" of alternatives to Capitalism are about as media-induced as depictions of pirates and ninjas -- the popular image of pirates being based on one actor in a movie, and ninjas... pretty much out of nothing but likely through a tradition of actors playing assassins in Japanese theater being dressed in black uniform used by stage hands (as in "this person isn't really here").
Even famous rock musicians had to write these reports (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_Vikid%C3%A1l [wikipedia.org] )
Hungary is not USSR.
Accept it, all post-Stalin examples of egregious abuse by "Communists" that you know, are from outside of USSR.
Absolutely. As a social system it was unsustainable.
Even USSR implementation of Socialism sustained itself pretty well for over 70 years, across various governments that made all kinds of stupid mistakes unrelated to the ideas of Capitalism and Communism. There is absolutely no evidence that is is "unsustainable", other than the fact that it was eventually destroyed, however since all social and economic systems are eventually destroyed, this is irrelevant.
"Communism is unsustainable" is a propaganda formula that is based on a dogma that claims, people can not do anything useful unless they are forced to do so under the pain of death, or by the greed. In its turn it is based on two religious beliefs -- about fear of Hell and eternal torture being the force that keeps people from sinning all the time (the list sins includes sloth), and about all people by their nature being sinners (and therefore motivated by greed), lacking virtues unless they dedicate their whole lives to service of God.
Like all beliefs about human nature that are based on religion, they are completely wrong -- humans evolved to form a healthy society, and therefore they already have a healthy balance of co-operative and competitive tendencies. This happened long before the invention of Capitalism, currency, property and government, and it's nothing short of insane to reduce humans' motivation to greed, powerlust and fear of death. Current Capitalist society over-emphasizes those forms of motivation, so almost everyone at the top of it is mentally deficient, with those motivations trumping everything else. Those people obviously want themselves to be recognized as "normal" humans, however in reality not only they are sick and dangerous, a society can not survive if it was possible for the rest of population to have such motivation.
Communism as a social system is based on the idea that in the absence of a threat, or recognition of power over other humans as an accomplishment, people would be motivated by their own desire to co-operate and participate in the functioning society. In a society that achieved abundance of material goods (that, I believe, mankind as a whole already did, in the end of 20th century), such society would be optimal because people would not waste their efforts and resources on damaging or destroying each other, but abundance would make it very easy and safe to develop new things without any additional motivation of greed and fear. However since Communism as a political movement started in 19th century, and the first government of Communists appeared in early 20th century in a very poor, war-devastated Russia, there had to be a compromise with government forcing and encouraging co-operation on people in the absence of abundance. Therefore Socialism, not Communism, had to be implemented, as only a society that promotes co-operation can reach the state when Communism is possible. I see no flaw is this decision -- it contradicts the idea of what is and isn't a "right" or "property" under US-style Capitalism, but those ideas are not even shared by all Capitalist societies. In USSR, Socialism managed to degenerate into Stalinism, however as it was clearly seen at the time after Stalin's death, that it was capable of returning to its intended direction once the deviation is over. Brezhnev's "Developed Socialism" was another (milder) deviation of the same kind, and there was no reason to expect that it would not be over if Gorbachev's Perestroika was not derailed into a Libertarian and pro-Capitalism mess that it was. The end of USSR was an accident -- there are many countries with all forms of government that were dissolved or had their social system changed in a similar circumstances. Capitalist countries aren't any more stable than this, Russian Empire certainly was not before Communists, as they succeeded in taking it over in the first place.
Just the fact that such society survived through almost the whole 20th century, shows that government enforcing greed and competiti
The soft dictatorship of the late 70ies and 80ies was a result of financial difficulties. That was when the people in power realized that the system cannot be sustained indefinitely and there's a need for smooth transition to capitalism.
You can't have "financial difficulties" in a country that is run as a giant nonprofit -- there is no place to lose money in the first place. This is just not possible -- not until there is some massive shortage of natural resources or population losing capability to work so production is lost, however neither of those things would be cured by Capitalism.
USSR fell when the government was no longer satisfactory to the society - and that happened because the decay of the society, built into the structure of USSR's socialism, damaged the country so much that there wasn't enough food to get by.
There was definitely more than enough food there. Anti-USSR propaganda made plenty of effort to paint "starving Russians" picture, however it was completely baseless, food lacked variety for decades, but there would be heads rolling (well, not literally, but there would be people shot) if government allowed shortages, or anything unhealthy was allowed into the system. The only thing that resembles a "food shortage" was a shortage of sugar around 1989 (I may be a year off in either direction) -- something that happens in Russia and ex-USSR countries every time when people expect a problem in economy in the future, and try to stock up on something useful, valuable and potential material for making homemade alcohol drinks. That was well into the "liberalization of economy" that scared the poplation, and I am sure, no sane person would expect a genuine society-destroying food shortage to be limited to sugar.
Perestroika was not initiated by the population or society as a whole -- if anything, all dissidents' opinions were ignored, and they were not ever invited to be a part of the process. The problem was the same as with Khruschev -- Communist Party leaders making arbitrary decisions. In that case Gorbachev initiated long-needed liberalization, but had absolutely no idea how to implement it beyond proclaiming political freedoms, he would do better if he just stopped at that because that was the only area where he was somewhat competent. Economy was in a mild recession in late 80's (less of a recession than the rest of the world had a decade earlier), but it was a combination of irresponsible experimentation with economy, destruction of established links between USSR members, and attempted implementation of Libertarian ideas that caused a massive looting and collapse of early 90's.
I remember it very well because I have left in the middle of collapse, at the end of 1993, almost two years after USSR dissolution.
The Russians had very little chance grasping anything after the regime broke down, what with the half a millenium spent in real or virtual serfdom, first to samoderzhavie, then to the communist party, and now to the Russian style of government that is almost, but not quite entirely unlike samoderzhavie again.
So they are animals just like blacks and Arabs? I think, we have heard that crap already from other people.
My folks were in a better starting position, but we still have a long way to go and we're not ashamed to admit it (well, at least some of us).
Most immigrants to US are regretting ever stepping into a continent-wide snake pit you call a country, but they are too poor and mentally exhausted for another move across the globe, so they invent elaborate fantasies to justify their choice to come here. If you need any examples, just look at the Jewish immigrants from ex-USSR. All of them, myself included, faced mild discrimination based on their ethnicity not unlike Hispanics in US. Tiny percentage of them believed in any god, leave alone cared for any form of Judaism. Just look how most of them convinced themselves that they believe in an omniscient, but for some reason racist magical man in the sky despite 15-20 years of education absolutely incompatible with that idea. Want to know why they are so intellectually impotent? This is why, they have torn their brains apart with those delusions! It's painful for me to see those wrecks of human beings, especially considering that most of my relatives are in this category.
I do not suffer from those problems -- I came here because industry and science in all ex-USSR countries were destroyed, and remained in shambles for at least a decade. My choice to move into a country with functioning industry and dysfunctional society was justified despite being painful and despite my rejection of the most fundamental positions of its poisonous ideology.
You have the right to remain bitter, and I'm not questioning that,
I am not bitter. I hate you, I hate your masters, I hate your ideology, and I am perfectly content with my hatred toward people, organizations and ideologies who richly deserve it. It's your stupid American idea, a part of your brainwashing, that hatred is wrong yet somehow fighting enemies is good -- my position is the exact opposite, there is nothing wrong with rejecting and opposing something terrible and keeping it from entering your mind, but it would be a truly worthless kind of person if he can accomplish more by destroying what he hates rather than by building something he likes. That's right, in my mind all your heroes, politicians, criminals, businessmen and other "cool" or "powerful" guys are worthless and all those uppity engineers, scientists, mathematicians, artists and other geeks, are the best of the whole mankind -- how is that for a culture?
I find it ironic that despite this, you and your masters, along with everyone else, benefit from my work more than from any person that ever liked you or agreed with you. This became possible because I didn't have a single trace of greed in my motivation to study or to become an engineer -- I am free from the thing that taints your whole society, poisons your thoughts, destroys your education and derails your efforts. I may be talented and there are various circumstances of my life that ended up improving me in various ways, but it was purity of my motivation to study, that made my upbringing fundamentally different from all of you. It could not ever be done in US. It can't now be done anywhere. No one can reproduce the advantage I had because its source, a society that does not motivate people by greed and powerlust, is destroyed.
It was possible under a system that was destroyed by people like you. At some point it will become possible again, but it's very unlikely that anyone alive now, will ever see it. But when it will happen, modern Capitalism will be seen as something just
I live in US since 1993, and I would rather live in USSR if it was not destroyed and turned into shit by people who "grasped" your myths.
Some people don't understand you because you are ignorant and stupid.
Oh I know this, I just use the opportunity as a public service to point out what a giant fail his precious really is. You see its in a way like the failure of communism. You see the communists never could figure out how to fix the "busted shitter" problem and neither can Linux. Everyone wants to be the artist, nobody wants to be the guy that cleans toilets so they don't get cleaned. The communists had to actually order soldiers to do "potato duty" just to get someone to do the shit jobs nobody wanted but Linux don't have that luxury so what you get is a facade that covers a tarpaper shack with a busted outhouse attached. Sure it looks good on the outside but actually try living in it and its a stinking drafty about to fall over mess, and that is exactly what Linux is.
Are there supposed to be some actual arguments in this shit?
Look at the links, more vulnerabilities rated severe than Win 2K8
The definition of "vulnerability" is different for open source software -- all bugs are listed as vulnerabilities unless someone proven that a bug has no security implications. What no one bothers doing because it's easier to fix the bug, distribute the fix, and return to doing something productive.
Microsoft, on the other hand, only acknowledges security bugs when they are exploited by someone.
, Dell is losing money on every Ubuntu sale (Alex thinks they can make it up with volume, funny huh?)
Why should anyone care about Dell money, or how much do they lose in Microsoft bribes when they don't sell Windows? For all I care, Dell management can commit a mass suicide.
and even they can't get enough QA to get a lousy dozen devices to have their drivers checked before the next release makes a big old stinky all over them, so they have to run their own repos. Linux is Windows 98, nothing more. Its a CLO OS with a GUI bolted on that doesn't really work well, has shitty drivers, and if anything goes wrong you have to go CLI just to work on the POS.
Repeating the lies often, does not make them true.
Oh, I understand it just fine. Some guy read a book on object-oriented programming and thought, this is how software "ought" to be developed, and he should better write a "framework" for it because in his mind, no one seemed to follow those great ideas. Then framework became married to $deity-awful communications mechanisms (starting from DDE).
The truth is, it's a solution for a nonexistent problem, and only people completely ignorant of data formats and network protocols may think, it provides anything valuable.
The practices you have listed are actually good C++ programming (except "custom string and array classes", whatever that means). Just because there is a bad library bundled with the language, it does not mean that everyone must prefer it over the native libc, it is useful only when it fits the purpose of the program.
So you want to sell your products in the US to people who follow the capitalist system. They will buy your products because they want to eventually earn more money and use your products to do so.
If I lived "to sell products" I would kill myself already. I develop technology, something that is valuable regardless of the social or economical system.
What a hypocrite you are.
There is nothing hypocritical about living in a system I hate and despise. I have left ex-USSR because it adopted a system that I also hate and despise, plus in a process of doing so they destroyed all infrastructure for technology development, thus making my work pointless and my abilities useless.
Don't run away from it, you being in the US and part of US economy support the US capitalist system.
US or capitalism did not became stronger because of my efforts. Technology however improved for everyone, and its development is a part of a process that is much older than US.
Explain why your opinion is relevant here. I am talking about a general trend.
This is a general trend. The whole top of your society belongs in a mental asylum.
Yeah.. I heard the MIT in Moscow is pretty cool.
MIPT actually.
Yeah.. the KGB archives. That is the most trustworthy source in the world. Amazing... You are so deluded.
Oh, the famous "they are lying!" claim. Through the whole history, government services' archives were consistently accurate when it came to recording their own actions, regardless of what those services were doing. Those people were proud of what they were doing, and the last thing they cared about is how their work will be evaluated by their enemies.
Certainly they are more trustworthy than people who were paid to write propaganda, or one mediocre but extremely (and rightfully) pissed off fiction writer. Definitely more trustworthy than people who made detailed claims about things they could not possibly obtain any information about -- what means, all American "historians" until 90's.
Are there cases where dragging physical metaphors into computing is brutally-old-and-busted? Sure; but making MP3 players with UIs consisting of elaborate(but non-resizeable) bitmaps renditions of 1970s stereo gear was a moronic idea back in the 90s, just as it is now. Outside of agonizing over-literal nonsense like that, 'real life inspirations' seem to take two forms, neither obviously outmoded:
There is one important change that happened with media players the interface kept its "1970s stereo gear" look but was evolving in various ways -- "Stop" button disappeared, and "Play" button now shares space with "Pause". This reflects improved understanding of playing media files -- there is no point specifically telling a player that you are not going to resume playing something, and there is no additional effort necessary to combine two mutually-exclusive buttons. The idea of playlist (and "Previous"/"Next" button navigating it) had no equivalent in album-based media, and neither was "Stop playing after this song", automatic search for lyrics, etc. The idea of "Previous"/"Reverse"/"Play"/"Fast Forward"/"Next" control buttons in a row marked by language-neutral symbols, however, stayed the same, and even "infected" keyboards because it was a good idea to begin with.
1. Remnants in name only: Your email client likely still has an 'inbox' and an 'outbox' because, at some point, somebody actually had two boxes on their desk. Guess what, it doesn't matter. The computerized abstractions have gained so many features(instant search, threading, sort-by-whatever-you-want, etc, etc.) that they bear almost no relation to their physical counterpart. They have to be called something, so the legacy name is harmless enough.
Outbox disappeared at the point when it became unnecessary because instant sending became possible. On the other hand, multiple folders with automatic sorting had no paper mail equivalent, they appeared after manually-sorted ones but became useful after mail clients (and some servers) started auto-applying filters.
What is this "rest of the web" of which you speak?
/g/ probably.
COM is a stupid idea, this is why no one outside Windows does anything like that. The only reason why it exists on Windows is because Microsoft developers believed, it opens some kind of bright new object-handling future that they will be lords and masters of. It doesn't, the whole approach is stupid and dangerous, and it must be abandoned along with everything else Microsoft originated.
US has created the best economic incentive system in the world.
The best incentive that seems to only work for sociopaths.
That is why people come to the US .. to earn more money.
_I_ came to US not "to earn money" but to develop technology after US-worshipping "libertarians" destroyed my country. I am lucky that they have destroyed it after I got excellent education, because if I lived in US, I would never have a chance to get anything even remotely resembling one that I got in the last years of USSR.
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin [necrometrics.com]
Oh wow, a web site of some nutcase, that cites works of fiction among its sources, lumps together victims of natural disasters with political executions and deaths in prisons, and follows each and every propaganda trick ever used against USSR government in general and Stalin in particular.
If you have any data to dispute that (I mean.. things that exist in reality) show it .. or shut the fuck up.
Everything based on NKVD/KGB archives, that were opened in 90's, but none of the US propaganda workers were interested. If anything, the bureaucrats counted and reported everything very well.
lol wut