Re:Gravity and what Physics says
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
Part of the problem is thinking that there has to be a 'why'. There doesn't; the fundamental laws of the universe work the way they do *just because*. If the Big Bang had turned out a little differently then so would these fundamental laws; Planck's Constant, for example, could be any number of values depending on the properties of the initial creation of the universe. There's no 'why' to it, nor does there need to be.
Jesus, and I was thinking that if things got any worse in the U.S. I might take my family and emigrate someplace sane, like Holland. But that won't work if Holland, through the EU, starts signing up for the same insanity the U.S. government seems so enamored of.
Linux's software may not be quite as bad as it used to be, but it still is far below the state of Macintosh even. The level of moderation suggests that most people here agree with my sentiments. What's more consumers are not exactly flooding Linux en masse.
And I repeat: FUD. Utter crap. The functionality of the apps available on Linux far exceed what any normal user would require. Your claims to the contrary don't change reality.
As for consumers not flooding the Linux market, this has nothing to do with the quality of the apps. This should be readily apparent even to you. Try thinking about it for more than thirty seconds to see if you can come up with any other reason Linux may not be taking an entrenched, monopolistic desktop market by storm (duuuuuh). The DOJ had some ideas, before that wanker Bush took office.
It's rather clear, however, that no matter how functional or stable Linux apps are you'll scream to the high heavens that they can't equal the inane, shitty crap that comes from Redmond.
Please, if you're that much in love with Bill's little tool then stick with the Windows you love so much (Linux user my hairy ass). You claim you've been using "Linux for many years now", but it's obvious from your rants that you despise Linux, think it sucks, and can't hope to compete with Windows. I seriously doubt that you've done much more than tried to install Mandrake some time in the past and failed miserably at it.
As for the 'development models', if you don't like open source/free software then stick with Windows - it's apparent that's about your speed anyway. Claiming that the model is flawed is fucking laughable considering just how far things have come, and how quickly, using that model. Any rational person would be amazed - that is, if they weren't disciples of the Great Gates.
Wow you really missed the point. The whole point is that idealists, such as yourself (on any other forum but the socialist idealist high school site that Slashdot largely is I would call you a troll), like to take the FRUITS OF CAPITALISM and then rant about the evils of capitalism and how those fruits should be free.
The number of fucking idiots on/. seems to grow daily. Especially those incapable of reading. To quote myself:
"Capitalism is great for any number of things: making cars, toasters, computers, and so forth."
A reasonably non-brain-dead person would assume from the line above that I actually like capitalism. Although I'm smart enough to realize that capitalism is good at some things, while it just plain sucks at others. I'm not an Ayn Rand fanatic beating the 'free market rulez, d00d' drum; it isn't a question of either/or, as should be apparent to anyone who isn't a fanatic and can actually use more than a small selection of brain cells.
How about China? The former Soviet Union?
These countries aren't America, nitwit. And notice that I didn't argue for the totalitarian fascism that's blithely labeled 'communism' by morons incapable of distinguishing the economic reality from the propoganda; what I argued for was trying out socialized medicine without otherwise fucking up American capitalism.
Try wrapping your brain about that concept, if you can. This isn't an 'all or nothing' world no matter how much you might wish to shove all the messy parts into either/or boxes.
I'm not sure where all of the anti-RMS vitriol comes from.
I think it springs from annoyance. RMS is a hardliner with zero ability to bend; some people admire that, others get quite irked. A few things that make me dislike the man:
his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux. Enough already!
his utter arrogance concerning KDE when the libraries went GPL. I mean, wtf? "I forgive you"? Is he a friggin' religious figure? Who the hell does he think he is, that KDE would need his goddamn forgiveness?
his consistent interference in the development of non-free software for Linux, and his insistence that only free software is morally righteous.
in interviews, the man sounds more and more like a religious zealot as time goes on. Maybe this doesn't bother you, but zealots make me reach for my.38. I don't trust them, I don't like them, and I don't want them anywhere near me, either in a literal or figurative sense (stay away from my software!).
his disapproval of Linux developers who aren't political about free software (e.g., his comments concerning Linus's complete lack of interest in most things political in this arena).
I'll be the first to admit that the man did a good thing with GPL. But more and more he sounds like an authoritarian dictator trying to remake the world as he sees fit, and insisting that others follow his lead. I think he does more damage than good, now, and wish he'd just damn well retire and write a book or something. Maybe get in some fishing.
What a load of crap. You're accusing an actual participant in the conversation with RMS of misrepresentation of what was actually said. You have no factual evidence to the contrary (you weren't involved in any way) and despite the fact that this was made quite public (linuxtoday.com) RMS *never once* refuted the claims.
There might be another factor at work as well. If you've dealt with suits at very large companies before, when you get into upper management there exists a rather rarified environment where only the things the managers want to hear actually reach their ears. It's a civilian version of the SNAFU effect.
In some of these companies the work environment actually insulates not just the management but damn near *everyone* in the corporate mythos. What the company says everyone comes to really *believe*. To an outsider this appears to be really whacked an almost cultish in nature, but to an insider they can't imagine things any other way. Anyone who disagrees with the corporate mythos is fired, only strengthening the extremist views of those who remain.
Bill G., sitting at the very top of that ladder, might honestly believe that without MS there would be no open source, ever. He might actually believe that without MS there would be no publicly-available and widespread use of the internet. Leaders often start believing that even their shit smells good when they become wildly successful in a short period of time.
I've seen this when working for or contracting to certain corporations. Symantec comes to mind (those guys are *fruitcakes*), as does Amazon (maybe not now, but even a year ago...) and Microsoft. I've heard employees blather on and on about how great Microsoft is and that without the company we'd still be in the computer Stone Age and there would be no internet. If the employees say this, and their managerial bosses say this, eventually the upper management is going to start assimilating the bullshit they've been handing down to the prolls.
So in the end maybe Billy really does believe that his shit smells good, and that everyone else thinks so too.
Ah yes the Slashdot anti-business belief that businesses are evil entities run by evil cyborg villains
Nah, just people completely and utterly bereft of conscience or humanitarianism...like you! A troll, of course, but saying that the selfishness of capitalism is always fine and dandy regardless of the endeavor is the preaching of an idiot.
Capitalism is great for any number of things: making cars, toasters, computers, and so forth. It's rather lousy at things like space travel, public education, and providing medical services. What I'm saying is that there are human interests where capitalism as a system just plain sucks - on a moral level. it might be the most efficient use of resources, but it sure as hell isn't the most ethical.
It's the best system we've got, and if you can show me a socialist model that worked better I'd love to see it.
Hilarious, since the U.S. has never had socialized medicine or drug development, and comparing it to other countries with lesser resources is an exercise in stupidity.
I guess the only way to know for sure is to socialize medicine. I'm game.
Classic anti-IP FUD. The reality is that drug companies don't just "give it away freely" because those drugs cost billions of dollars to develop in the first place, and the earnings from sales finances the NEXT round of life saving drugs. In other words it's real convenient to say "Geee, thanks for the drugs...now let's make them free!", changing the rules after they've been developed, but the reality is that that would DEMOLISH the future of drugs that will save countless future lives. Your position is the compassionate position, but the reality is that it's the simplistic position that equals countless deaths/shorter lives because you've undermined the whole foundation of why these drugs exist in the first place.
Which only proves that the current system for the development and distribution of needed medicines is broken. If it comes down to profit vs lives then clearly the system being used is morally bereft. It may be good capitalism but this is clearly a case when capitalism is the wrong system to use.
And I do mean "wrong". Not 'incorrect' or 'inefficient', but just plain wrong.
If anyone has any evidence that replacing the current system would somehow dramatically reduce advances in the development of medicines, please provide empirical evidence to support your claim. Of course, I realize that you can't provide such evidence since the system has never been replaced, but that's precisely my point.
The argument that P2P is the record companies' fault because they just aren't keeping up with technology is totally fucking bogus. When the record companies try to charge for music on the web, as they are about to do with Napster, they'll be laughed at and ignored because we don't want to pay ANYTHING.
It's rather clear from the unending argument on this topic that there are two types of people in the world:
those who would screw everyone and their brother, and because they would do it they insist that everyone else would do it as well; and
those who don't automatically assume that everyone is a thieving asshole.
It seems to me the most vociferous of anti-P2P fanatics are precisely the amoral dickweeds they claim everyone else is. That's the way they think, therefore everyone else must be that way as well. If everone else isn't, they might actually have to examine the possibility that they truly are amoral dickweeds, and in the minority at that.
Now when I see these arguments I just chuckle and think 'another morally-bereft nutsack trying to convince the world that everyone is just like him'.
Uh huh. Sure. Just keep telling yourself that. Especially if it helps you sleep at night.
You'll get my cable modem when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands....
I realize that some parts of the country have problems with cable, but where I live it's blazingly fast and *always* up. There isn't a chance on god's green earth I'd give it up and go back to slow modems, busy signals, unexpected dropouts, and regular winter service outages due to downed lines.
Unfortunately so many linux projects have become so obsessed with attracting Windows users (why? Do we really expect these people to switch over? Get real!)
Actually, I'm seeing people try out Linux for the first time because of the Windows XP registration scheme (among other things). It isn't Linux that moves these people to try it out, but Microsoft.
Providing tools that 'mimic' common Windows programs just makes it all the easier. KDE is so close that I've had people mistake it for another version of Windows!
Yet another FUDmeister who insists that Linux doesn't have "a lot of the quality software that users demand".
Listen up, boy: that line has been done, and done, and done again. It may have been true three or four years ago but it ain't true anymore. Buy yourself a clue or two.
Now, you just might get your dander up and start naming off a few esoteric Win programs that don't have a ready equivalent in Linux, but 99% of the app-time in Windows is devoted to:
email
word processing
spreadsheets
web browsing
calendars
farting around on the job
Linux has a great many apps that can do all of these things, thus satisfying the huge majority of those who actually work at their computers (or avoid working at their computers). Users don't demand anything more than this, because most users aren't employed in jobs that need anything more complicated. If you think otherwise you need to get out more.
So, FUD-guy, think up a new line. Yours is old, outdated, and simply not true anymore. Worse, it's boring. If you're going to slag Linux at least choose something that might actually be true.
How could you possibly know how coding is implemented in Windows products? Can you produce *any* source code for *any* of these products so that the rest of us may review them? Or should we rely upon the unsupported, anecdotal evidence of a 'a manager at (your) former employer'?
Heck, I can point you to the source of just about any app you name in Linux, including Linux itself. You can see for yourself whether the coding is sane or not. I don't know of anywhere I can go to do that with Windows or Windows apps. All I can get is unsupported hearsay.
NT 3.5 was also incredibly easy to hack...not that I would know. Hey, is that someone knocking at my door?
"What the hell? Who are you blokes? FBI? Terrorist? What terrorist? You mean *me*!? Really, honest, I'm not a terrorist! Hey, isn't there a statute of limitations on these things???"
Well hell, if you've got a great big business with tons of cash I guess a few thousand doesn't matter much. But to all the small and medium sized businesses out there a few thousand is a bit more than a drop in the ol' bucket, eh?
Which national press were you watching? Where I was, Nader got plenty of coverage even though he didn't participate in the debates.
Sure, in the "isn't he cute" sense. No one in the press ever said, at any time, that Nader was a serious contender. In fact, the press often drove home the point (directly and indirectly) that he wasn't.
Did you pay any attention at all? Gore and Bush are light years apart on a ton of issues
Indeed, I did pay attention, and on the things that I care about they either didn't have a significantly different viewpoint, or they didn't mention them at all.
Now, it seems to me that neither stood out as being particularly different from the other, and I still stand by my assertion that they're both bought-and-paid-for instruments of corporations as well as their own sleazy parties. YMMV, of course.
You should start reading some serious history instead of the highschool crap.
Little man, my knowledge of history is considerably more extensive than anything taught in highschool. Don't presume to judge something you haven't a clue on.
So you think the choices sucked this time. That shouldn't turn you off voting; it should get you more involved! It's apathy that makes our political system break down, not shadowy forces placing puppets on the throne. If your position is that the system is broken, then you are responsible for fixing it!
My choices have sucked for nearly 20 years, which you would know if you'd read the original post. I've *never* had a choice in any presidential, senate, or house race which came anywhere close to being what I'd consider decent.
It always boils down to Republicans and Democrats, and they're both comprised of two-bit whores for sale to the highest bidder. So much talk, but when it comes right down to it it's just one band of criminals, thugs, and lackwits compared to another.
Oh, and I did mention a possible fix. It involved taking certain elected and appointed government officials and hanging them from the nearest lamppost. Our Founding Fathers thought that a grand way of expressing disapproval of one's government, and I happen to agree with them.
Finally, I'd say the current president epitomizes the term "lackey". But the man is so brain-dead I doubt he even knows what the hell his aides are talking about half the time.
You know, if you're going to troll you should at least put a little finesse into it. This blather is so far off in right-wing looney land that no one would believe you're for real for a second.
Although I have to admit it was good for a chuckle.
Right...Windows installed in about 30 minutes on my 1.4 ghz machine. But then I had to install the drivers for the video card (a reboot), the sound card (a reboot), my motherboard (ASUS 7700, a reboot), my network card (add TCP/IP, that requires a reboot), and my printer (another bloody reboot?). Now go to www.microsoft.com to get the latest updates what what happens? I end up having to reboot THREE times for 'critical updates' and the like.
Add to that Office to provide some functionality plus another two dozen apps to mimic some of the things I can do in Linux. And don't forget to patch the programs as well.
All of this took me most of the day. SuSe 7.3 required none of these steps, doing the entire install from start to finish in an hour and a half. The only thing I had to do was swap the cds every now and then.
I don't install themes. They're a waste of time.
I don't muck with my sound drivers because they worked perfectly out of the box. Not so for Windows.
And why should I give a shit about your Visio program?
I know how well Linux works, and I'm more productive in Linux than in Windows. But then I actually know what I'm talking about, since I recently tested both Windows and SuSe 7.3 out myself to see how they compared. Have you?
With SuSe 7.3 Windows no longer installs faster or easier than Linux. The entire OS plus 1800 installed apps with reasonable defaults was a one hour, 23 minute procedure on my 1.4 ghz machine, no rebooting and no asking for driver disks. Win98 plus Office plus a dozen or so minor apps took most of the day, several driver disks/cds, and seven or eight reboots.
With SuSe 7.3 MS is beat hands-down for install time and ease of use.
Now moving from Win95 or WinNT to a Linux environment is a completely different issue. Here you have substantial end user training costs because things work very differently. Especially in the office suite products and working with files and printers and such.
Hogwash. A word processor is a word processor is a word processor. They all pretty much have the same layout and logic; the only real difference is figuring out which function is on which drop-down menu, or which icon means 'print', 'spell check', etc. This also applies to your average spreadsheet, address book, and so forth.
Hell, use the KDE desktop and Office suite and your end user will simply think it's a new version of Windows. Contrary to your claims, this isn't that big of a deal.
Here, have another slice of FUD.
But on the support side, it's an even more substantial cost of retraining. Everything is completely different, so it's almost like starting from scratch.
People keep saying this, and I keep replying: "what kind of morons do you have working for you?" Look, a competent sysadmin should be able to adapt to a new environment without a great deal of fuss - the hardware's the same, the protocols are the same, the functionality is the same. The only difference is the tools. If your admins can't make the transition to new tools by themselves within a few months time (less, more likely) then you should be firing their sorry asses, not making excuses for their lack of talent, skill or expertise.
"Sysadmins" this incompetent should be flipping burgers, not troubleshooting expensive equipment.
Blather, excuses, FUD, more excuses, yada yada. The only conclusion I can come to is that the IT departments in most Win-based shops are chock full of brainless idiots.
It's the extension of the 'psychology degree' effect. If someone gets a degree in engineering, a non-engineer isn't going to argue that his opinion is just as relevant re engineering as the person with the degree, at least not without appearing to be a complete fool to everyone within earshot.
However, *everyone* thinks that they're a psychologist just because they manage to crank out a thought every now and then. It's patently ludicrous and just as stupid as the engineering degree example above, but people refuse to recognize their own appalling ignorance on the topic.
For whatever reason, people in management assume that because they've mastered some non-pre-installed tools (e.g., they successfully installed BearShare and can download mp3s on company time), that questionable measure of success makes them an expert. Again, it's a ridiculous, even pathetic, assumption, but it's rather widespread when it comes to PHBs.
These are the people that make me wish that a clue-stick was a large, baseball-bat-like object....
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem is thinking that there has to be a 'why'. There doesn't; the fundamental laws of the universe work the way they do *just because*. If the Big Bang had turned out a little differently then so would these fundamental laws; Planck's Constant, for example, could be any number of values depending on the properties of the initial creation of the universe. There's no 'why' to it, nor does there need to be.
Max
Jesus, and I was thinking that if things got any worse in the U.S. I might take my family and emigrate someplace sane, like Holland. But that won't work if Holland, through the EU, starts signing up for the same insanity the U.S. government seems so enamored of.
Max
Linux's software may not be quite as bad as it used to be, but it still is far below the state of Macintosh even. The level of moderation suggests that most people here agree with my sentiments. What's more consumers are not exactly flooding Linux en masse.
And I repeat: FUD. Utter crap. The functionality of the apps available on Linux far exceed what any normal user would require. Your claims to the contrary don't change reality.
As for consumers not flooding the Linux market, this has nothing to do with the quality of the apps. This should be readily apparent even to you. Try thinking about it for more than thirty seconds to see if you can come up with any other reason Linux may not be taking an entrenched, monopolistic desktop market by storm (duuuuuh). The DOJ had some ideas, before that wanker Bush took office.
It's rather clear, however, that no matter how functional or stable Linux apps are you'll scream to the high heavens that they can't equal the inane, shitty crap that comes from Redmond.
Please, if you're that much in love with Bill's little tool then stick with the Windows you love so much (Linux user my hairy ass). You claim you've been using "Linux for many years now", but it's obvious from your rants that you despise Linux, think it sucks, and can't hope to compete with Windows. I seriously doubt that you've done much more than tried to install Mandrake some time in the past and failed miserably at it.
As for the 'development models', if you don't like open source/free software then stick with Windows - it's apparent that's about your speed anyway. Claiming that the model is flawed is fucking laughable considering just how far things have come, and how quickly, using that model. Any rational person would be amazed - that is, if they weren't disciples of the Great Gates.
Max
Wow you really missed the point. The whole point is that idealists, such as yourself (on any other forum but the socialist idealist high school site that Slashdot largely is I would call you a troll), like to take the FRUITS OF CAPITALISM and then rant about the evils of capitalism and how those fruits should be free.
/. seems to grow daily. Especially those incapable of reading. To quote myself:
The number of fucking idiots on
"Capitalism is great for any number of things: making cars, toasters, computers, and so forth."
A reasonably non-brain-dead person would assume from the line above that I actually like capitalism. Although I'm smart enough to realize that capitalism is good at some things, while it just plain sucks at others. I'm not an Ayn Rand fanatic beating the 'free market rulez, d00d' drum; it isn't a question of either/or, as should be apparent to anyone who isn't a fanatic and can actually use more than a small selection of brain cells.
How about China? The former Soviet Union?
These countries aren't America, nitwit. And notice that I didn't argue for the totalitarian fascism that's blithely labeled 'communism' by morons incapable of distinguishing the economic reality from the propoganda; what I argued for was trying out socialized medicine without otherwise fucking up American capitalism.
Try wrapping your brain about that concept, if you can. This isn't an 'all or nothing' world no matter how much you might wish to shove all the messy parts into either/or boxes.
Max
Prove it, shit-for-brains. Try for some empirical evidence, if you have any. Let's see some of that solid 'statistical evidence' you think exists.
Come on. I'm waiting. *Prove what you say is true*. Either that, or admit you're just blowing hot air out your ass.
Max
Then go ask for a copy of the original email. That should clear up any problem with 'paraphrasing' you seem to have.
Max
I think it springs from annoyance. RMS is a hardliner with zero ability to bend; some people admire that, others get quite irked. A few things that make me dislike the man:
- his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux. Enough already!
- his utter arrogance concerning KDE when the libraries went GPL. I mean, wtf? "I forgive you"? Is he a friggin' religious figure? Who the hell does he think he is, that KDE would need his goddamn forgiveness?
- his consistent interference in the development of non-free software for Linux, and his insistence that only free software is morally righteous.
- in interviews, the man sounds more and more like a religious zealot as time goes on. Maybe this doesn't bother you, but zealots make me reach for my
.38. I don't trust them, I don't like them, and I don't want them anywhere near me, either in a literal or figurative sense (stay away from my software!).
- his disapproval of Linux developers who aren't political about free software (e.g., his comments concerning Linus's complete lack of interest in most things political in this arena).
I'll be the first to admit that the man did a good thing with GPL. But more and more he sounds like an authoritarian dictator trying to remake the world as he sees fit, and insisting that others follow his lead. I think he does more damage than good, now, and wish he'd just damn well retire and write a book or something. Maybe get in some fishing.Max
What a load of crap. You're accusing an actual participant in the conversation with RMS of misrepresentation of what was actually said. You have no factual evidence to the contrary (you weren't involved in any way) and despite the fact that this was made quite public (linuxtoday.com) RMS *never once* refuted the claims.
Max
Perhaps if other companies would hire intelligent people and work as aggressively, we might see some actual innovations from them as well as MS.
Using the words "Microsoft" and "innovation" in the same sentence is a non-sequiter.
Max
There might be another factor at work as well. If you've dealt with suits at very large companies before, when you get into upper management there exists a rather rarified environment where only the things the managers want to hear actually reach their ears. It's a civilian version of the SNAFU effect.
In some of these companies the work environment actually insulates not just the management but damn near *everyone* in the corporate mythos. What the company says everyone comes to really *believe*. To an outsider this appears to be really whacked an almost cultish in nature, but to an insider they can't imagine things any other way. Anyone who disagrees with the corporate mythos is fired, only strengthening the extremist views of those who remain.
Bill G., sitting at the very top of that ladder, might honestly believe that without MS there would be no open source, ever. He might actually believe that without MS there would be no publicly-available and widespread use of the internet. Leaders often start believing that even their shit smells good when they become wildly successful in a short period of time.
I've seen this when working for or contracting to certain corporations. Symantec comes to mind (those guys are *fruitcakes*), as does Amazon (maybe not now, but even a year ago...) and Microsoft. I've heard employees blather on and on about how great Microsoft is and that without the company we'd still be in the computer Stone Age and there would be no internet. If the employees say this, and their managerial bosses say this, eventually the upper management is going to start assimilating the bullshit they've been handing down to the prolls.
So in the end maybe Billy really does believe that his shit smells good, and that everyone else thinks so too.
Max
Ah yes the Slashdot anti-business belief that businesses are evil entities run by evil cyborg villains
Nah, just people completely and utterly bereft of conscience or humanitarianism...like you! A troll, of course, but saying that the selfishness of capitalism is always fine and dandy regardless of the endeavor is the preaching of an idiot.
Capitalism is great for any number of things: making cars, toasters, computers, and so forth. It's rather lousy at things like space travel, public education, and providing medical services. What I'm saying is that there are human interests where capitalism as a system just plain sucks - on a moral level. it might be the most efficient use of resources, but it sure as hell isn't the most ethical.
It's the best system we've got, and if you can show me a socialist model that worked better I'd love to see it.
Hilarious, since the U.S. has never had socialized medicine or drug development, and comparing it to other countries with lesser resources is an exercise in stupidity.
I guess the only way to know for sure is to socialize medicine. I'm game.
Max
Classic anti-IP FUD. The reality is that drug companies don't just "give it away freely" because those drugs cost billions of dollars to develop in the first place, and the earnings from sales finances the NEXT round of life saving drugs. In other words it's real convenient to say "Geee, thanks for the drugs...now let's make them free!", changing the rules after they've been developed, but the reality is that that would DEMOLISH the future of drugs that will save countless future lives. Your position is the compassionate position, but the reality is that it's the simplistic position that equals countless deaths/shorter lives because you've undermined the whole foundation of why these drugs exist in the first place.
Which only proves that the current system for the development and distribution of needed medicines is broken. If it comes down to profit vs lives then clearly the system being used is morally bereft. It may be good capitalism but this is clearly a case when capitalism is the wrong system to use.
And I do mean "wrong". Not 'incorrect' or 'inefficient', but just plain wrong.
If anyone has any evidence that replacing the current system would somehow dramatically reduce advances in the development of medicines, please provide empirical evidence to support your claim. Of course, I realize that you can't provide such evidence since the system has never been replaced, but that's precisely my point.
Max
It's rather clear from the unending argument on this topic that there are two types of people in the world:
- those who would screw everyone and their brother, and because they would do it they insist that everyone else would do it as well; and
- those who don't automatically assume that everyone is a thieving asshole.
It seems to me the most vociferous of anti-P2P fanatics are precisely the amoral dickweeds they claim everyone else is. That's the way they think, therefore everyone else must be that way as well. If everone else isn't, they might actually have to examine the possibility that they truly are amoral dickweeds, and in the minority at that.Now when I see these arguments I just chuckle and think 'another morally-bereft nutsack trying to convince the world that everyone is just like him'.
Uh huh. Sure. Just keep telling yourself that. Especially if it helps you sleep at night.
Max
You'll get my cable modem when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands....
I realize that some parts of the country have problems with cable, but where I live it's blazingly fast and *always* up. There isn't a chance on god's green earth I'd give it up and go back to slow modems, busy signals, unexpected dropouts, and regular winter service outages due to downed lines.
Max
Unfortunately so many linux projects have become so obsessed with attracting Windows users (why? Do we really expect these people to switch over? Get real!)
Actually, I'm seeing people try out Linux for the first time because of the Windows XP registration scheme (among other things). It isn't Linux that moves these people to try it out, but Microsoft.
Providing tools that 'mimic' common Windows programs just makes it all the easier. KDE is so close that I've had people mistake it for another version of Windows!
Max
Listen up, boy: that line has been done, and done, and done again. It may have been true three or four years ago but it ain't true anymore. Buy yourself a clue or two.
Now, you just might get your dander up and start naming off a few esoteric Win programs that don't have a ready equivalent in Linux, but 99% of the app-time in Windows is devoted to:
- email
- word processing
- spreadsheets
- web browsing
- calendars
- farting around on the job
Linux has a great many apps that can do all of these things, thus satisfying the huge majority of those who actually work at their computers (or avoid working at their computers). Users don't demand anything more than this, because most users aren't employed in jobs that need anything more complicated. If you think otherwise you need to get out more.So, FUD-guy, think up a new line. Yours is old, outdated, and simply not true anymore. Worse, it's boring. If you're going to slag Linux at least choose something that might actually be true.
Max
How could you possibly know how coding is implemented in Windows products? Can you produce *any* source code for *any* of these products so that the rest of us may review them? Or should we rely upon the unsupported, anecdotal evidence of a 'a manager at (your) former employer'?
Heck, I can point you to the source of just about any app you name in Linux, including Linux itself. You can see for yourself whether the coding is sane or not. I don't know of anywhere I can go to do that with Windows or Windows apps. All I can get is unsupported hearsay.
Max
NT 3.5 was also incredibly easy to hack...not that I would know. Hey, is that someone knocking at my door?
"What the hell? Who are you blokes? FBI? Terrorist? What terrorist? You mean *me*!? Really, honest, I'm not a terrorist! Hey, isn't there a statute of limitations on these things???"
"Wait, no, leggo, I'm not a teeerrrrrorrrist -"
NO CARRIER
Well hell, if you've got a great big business with tons of cash I guess a few thousand doesn't matter much. But to all the small and medium sized businesses out there a few thousand is a bit more than a drop in the ol' bucket, eh?
Max
Which national press were you watching? Where I was, Nader got plenty of coverage even though he didn't participate in the debates.
Sure, in the "isn't he cute" sense. No one in the press ever said, at any time, that Nader was a serious contender. In fact, the press often drove home the point (directly and indirectly) that he wasn't.
Did you pay any attention at all? Gore and Bush are light years apart on a ton of issues
Indeed, I did pay attention, and on the things that I care about they either didn't have a significantly different viewpoint, or they didn't mention them at all.
Now, it seems to me that neither stood out as being particularly different from the other, and I still stand by my assertion that they're both bought-and-paid-for instruments of corporations as well as their own sleazy parties. YMMV, of course.
You should start reading some serious history instead of the highschool crap.
Little man, my knowledge of history is considerably more extensive than anything taught in highschool. Don't presume to judge something you haven't a clue on.
So you think the choices sucked this time. That shouldn't turn you off voting; it should get you more involved! It's apathy that makes our political system break down, not shadowy forces placing puppets on the throne. If your position is that the system is broken, then you are responsible for fixing it!
My choices have sucked for nearly 20 years, which you would know if you'd read the original post. I've *never* had a choice in any presidential, senate, or house race which came anywhere close to being what I'd consider decent.
It always boils down to Republicans and Democrats, and they're both comprised of two-bit whores for sale to the highest bidder. So much talk, but when it comes right down to it it's just one band of criminals, thugs, and lackwits compared to another.
Oh, and I did mention a possible fix. It involved taking certain elected and appointed government officials and hanging them from the nearest lamppost. Our Founding Fathers thought that a grand way of expressing disapproval of one's government, and I happen to agree with them.
Finally, I'd say the current president epitomizes the term "lackey". But the man is so brain-dead I doubt he even knows what the hell his aides are talking about half the time.
Max
You know, if you're going to troll you should at least put a little finesse into it. This blather is so far off in right-wing looney land that no one would believe you're for real for a second.
Although I have to admit it was good for a chuckle.
Max
Right...Windows installed in about 30 minutes on my 1.4 ghz machine. But then I had to install the drivers for the video card (a reboot), the sound card (a reboot), my motherboard (ASUS 7700, a reboot), my network card (add TCP/IP, that requires a reboot), and my printer (another bloody reboot?). Now go to www.microsoft.com to get the latest updates what what happens? I end up having to reboot THREE times for 'critical updates' and the like.
Add to that Office to provide some functionality plus another two dozen apps to mimic some of the things I can do in Linux. And don't forget to patch the programs as well.
All of this took me most of the day. SuSe 7.3 required none of these steps, doing the entire install from start to finish in an hour and a half. The only thing I had to do was swap the cds every now and then.
I don't install themes. They're a waste of time.
I don't muck with my sound drivers because they worked perfectly out of the box. Not so for Windows.
And why should I give a shit about your Visio program?
I know how well Linux works, and I'm more productive in Linux than in Windows. But then I actually know what I'm talking about, since I recently tested both Windows and SuSe 7.3 out myself to see how they compared. Have you?
Max
With SuSe 7.3 Windows no longer installs faster or easier than Linux. The entire OS plus 1800 installed apps with reasonable defaults was a one hour, 23 minute procedure on my 1.4 ghz machine, no rebooting and no asking for driver disks. Win98 plus Office plus a dozen or so minor apps took most of the day, several driver disks/cds, and seven or eight reboots.
With SuSe 7.3 MS is beat hands-down for install time and ease of use.
Max
Now moving from Win95 or WinNT to a Linux environment is a completely different issue. Here you have substantial end user training costs because things work very differently. Especially in the office suite products and working with files and printers and such.
Hogwash. A word processor is a word processor is a word processor. They all pretty much have the same layout and logic; the only real difference is figuring out which function is on which drop-down menu, or which icon means 'print', 'spell check', etc. This also applies to your average spreadsheet, address book, and so forth.
Hell, use the KDE desktop and Office suite and your end user will simply think it's a new version of Windows. Contrary to your claims, this isn't that big of a deal.
Here, have another slice of FUD.
But on the support side, it's an even more substantial cost of retraining. Everything is completely different, so it's almost like starting from scratch.
People keep saying this, and I keep replying: "what kind of morons do you have working for you?" Look, a competent sysadmin should be able to adapt to a new environment without a great deal of fuss - the hardware's the same, the protocols are the same, the functionality is the same. The only difference is the tools. If your admins can't make the transition to new tools by themselves within a few months time (less, more likely) then you should be firing their sorry asses, not making excuses for their lack of talent, skill or expertise.
"Sysadmins" this incompetent should be flipping burgers, not troubleshooting expensive equipment.
Blather, excuses, FUD, more excuses, yada yada. The only conclusion I can come to is that the IT departments in most Win-based shops are chock full of brainless idiots.
Max
It's the extension of the 'psychology degree' effect. If someone gets a degree in engineering, a non-engineer isn't going to argue that his opinion is just as relevant re engineering as the person with the degree, at least not without appearing to be a complete fool to everyone within earshot.
However, *everyone* thinks that they're a psychologist just because they manage to crank out a thought every now and then. It's patently ludicrous and just as stupid as the engineering degree example above, but people refuse to recognize their own appalling ignorance on the topic.
For whatever reason, people in management assume that because they've mastered some non-pre-installed tools (e.g., they successfully installed BearShare and can download mp3s on company time), that questionable measure of success makes them an expert. Again, it's a ridiculous, even pathetic, assumption, but it's rather widespread when it comes to PHBs.
These are the people that make me wish that a clue-stick was a large, baseball-bat-like object....
Max