Geeez. It's difficult to be surrounded by people less knowledgeable than me *grin*.
Anyone who goes to a movie with a woman either has the wrong woman, or doesn't know what to do with her.
I know how Physics works. You have made the incorrect assumption that I don't know how women work. Actually, I know far more about them than about Physics.
I'm not poor. There are several theatres in the same building; sometimes I theatre switch. The money is nothing compared to the time I would otherwise spend being annoyed and bored.
I worked in a Physics laboratory for 5 years. When I see stupid Physics in movies, I lose interest in the plot. Sometimes I just walk out of the theater.
Those who want to protect their investment in a movie would do well to iron out the illogicality of the script first. The illogicality is not just in Physics; someone should do a web site about the illogicality of the Psychology in movies.
The point is that MS Windows has a complicated, poorly explained directory structure that requires you to understand the structure to do complete backups.
Worse yet, Windows XP puts user files and temporary files in the same folder!!
For example:
C:\Documents and Settings\DavidR\Local Settings\Temp
and
C:\Documents and Settings\DavidR\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files
along with
C:\Documents and Settings\DavidR\My Documents
It's mind-boggling why Microsoft does this. Maybe it makes it easier for the CIA or NSA.
Note to those who have always worked with Unix: MS Windows is worse than you've heard.
For several years, Veritas Backup Exec was my choice for the worst software
I'd ever seen. It had a database system that sometimes took 20 minutes (20
minutes, not seconds!!!) to find a record. Communication from Veritas
acknowledged this; people would otherwise think their computers were broken.
Maybe the other software they sold was better, but Backup Exec was
worse than any shareware or freeware I'd ever seen. (However, I'm picky about
what I download.)
Backup Exec (which was originally sold by Seagate)
was worse than HP backup software (originally from Colorado Memory), one
version of which littered hard drives with zero length files. Yes, HP backup
software actually WROTE to the hard drive. The file names were names of actual
files in other folders. An HP technical support person tried to convince me
that this was not such a bad bug.
Another specialty of Backup Exec was incomprehensible error messages.
I agree, forget tape; there are too many cases where it is a write-only media.
A lot of people who say they like their backup software have never done tests
to see if they can get the data back. Try restoring to another drive and doing
a byte-for-byte compare. You will be amazed at how often backups are not
really backups.
In my opinion, there is no important class of software that is as poor as
backup software. The software that should be the best is the worst! The reason
appears to be that only about 1% of customers actually test their backups to
see if they work. What most people accept as good backup software is a slick
interface and reassuring backup progress messages.
Note: My info about Veritas is old; quite obviously I would not want
continued experience with the company.
Retrospect on the PC has a weird interface. On the plus side, it is the only backup software I know of that can encrypt (DES). Encryption is necessary; you don't want to have to put CD and tape backups in the safe. Note that DES encryption is safe; password protection is not safe.
Dantz was just sold; it is unclear whether the company has management smart enough to coordinate the continued development of a technical product. I've seen some evidence that makes me think the company is very light on technical understanding.
This is all my opinion, of course.
Ignorant people want representation, too.
on
Carbon Sequestration
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"injecting carbon dioxide into the ocean as an answer to greenhouse warming"
I think it is a safe guess that this idea did not come from a fish.
One way to get elected is to go around to all the rich people and tell them that, if you are elected, you will do anything they want. Such a candidate will get a lot of money to run a campaign; if he can avoid showing the average person the truth, and if the other candidates aren't extremely attractive, it is possible that he will win.
This method works even for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the issues. Selling the government to the highest bidder only requires the intelligence necessary to know that one number is bigger than another.
Linux is the backbone of a social revolution. The underlying issue of
this Slashdot story is not how to build the kernel, but how to manage the part
of the new technical and sociological revolution that is connected to having a
universal operating system.
Linux has proven to be an operating system that everyone can rally around.
Some governments and large businesses have already adopted it. We live in a
world in which much of the infrastructure is guided by computer programs, so
strong support for efficient methods of using computers is extremely good news.
Linux is a fundamental backbone of the entire open source software movement.
There was far less support for open source software when there were 200
flavors of Unix and none were preferred. Now programmers can write for Linux,
and can depend that those who have an interest in other operating systems have
experience in re-writing Linux code for the OS they prefer. I use several Linux
programs in which Windows OS versions are provided by one person on each
team who has volunteered to build the program for Windows. So even Windows
benefits from Linux.
Most people don't understand the issues. Partly because Linux has
become a foundation of organization for a software revolution, this Slashdot
story is one of the most important that I have seen in perhaps two years of
reading Slashdot. Yet at the time this comment was posted there are only 27 comments rated 0 and above.
An earlier story about a small company going bankrupt has five times as many
comments!
The really important (and interesting) questions are beyond the comprehension
of most people, apparently.
Apparently the reason that many of the really important problems don't get
solved is that the problems are not only beyond the solving capacity of almost
everyone, but also beyond the consideration capacity of almost everyone. So a
problem like this doesn't receive much attention and help.
No sociologist could have guessed how much proprietary software would fail
us. Proprietary software companies seem to be competing with themselves to
abuse their customers. For example, Microsoft Windows XP expects to connect to
Microsoft computers for more than 12 different reasons. Many of those
connections expect to have server rights. Some of the "privacy policies"
behind those connections provide little actual privacy, and Microsoft and
others have changed their privacy policies, and made the changes retroactive,
so, effectively, you agree to some unknown contract in the future. (Microsoft
just did this with Hotmail, for example.)
The direction that Microsoft XP has gone makes it not so much an operating
system as a money-making scheme. There are a huge number of bugs. For example,
a P4 system with an Intel motherboard that was upgraded to Windows XP from a
fresh install of Windows 2000 just stops on loading. Behind the blue "Welcome"
screen, if you think to press Alt-Tab and look, is a message that says the
paging file is too small. That's the kind of double sloppiness those of us who work
with Windows see every day: An important message that shouldn't be there
because the system was just installed is hidden by another screen. Those who
work with Windows are often not very knowlegeable and those who are
knowledgeable often don't work with Windows. If they did, they would realize
that the situation with this proprietary OS is much worse than they thought.
For example, the new menus in Windows XP are often 5 to 7 levels deep.
Proprietary software companies often seem not to have the will to produce good
software. For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer has 18 unpatched security bugs (when this was
written). These active security risks are different from the recent 15 that
have already been fixed. Why would a company that has 40 billion dollars in
the bank let itself get an extremely bad reputation because of software bugs?
It doesn't make sense, and Microsoft is not the only software company that is
self-destructive in this way.
Another phenomenon that no sociologist could have foreseen is that proprietary
software companies have an extreme mode of failure. The brilliant initial
organizers sell out and leave, and the company, in an attempt to maximize
profits, hires less expensive people who don't quite have the ability to guide
the company through rapid technological change. Customers who chose products
from that company find those products increasingly inadequate, until
eventually they must bear the selection and training expense of choosing an
entirely new company and product. Often the product the first company made
just dies. In contrast, although it may become abandoned, open source software
never truly dies. Even in the worst situation it is ready to be modified and
used again.
The open source revolution is helping strengthen our fundamental
infrastructure. When I look at the operation of my local state government,
the government of Oregon, U.S.A., I see a lot of inefficiency and
insufficiency. One realistic method of improving government operations is to
have better software. For example, Oregon state courts send out notices of
actions by mail, and sometimes the notices are lost. The Oregon courts do not
have e-mail notification (but the libraries do). You can see all Oregon state
laws on the internet, but not the cases before the courts. Everywhere I look
in state government, there are areas that could be improved with better
software.
Humans and computers are excellent partners. Computers do exactly the work
that humans don't like to do, the repetitive work. A good computer program
enforces exact application of whatever policies have been adopted. This is
exactly the kind of discipline governments need, because a lot of corruption
begins with small deviations from the rules.
Proprietary software written for governments is no better than proprietary
software written for single users. It's expensive. It's exact operation is
hidden from both government managers and citizens, who cannot verify how it
works. The insufficiency and abusiveness of proprietary software companies
slows the acceptance of new and better software into government.
When governments of poor countries use proprietary software, they often create political and social problem for themselves. Sending a representative of a
very poor country to the U.S. for training can cause jealousy and job-related
empire building. In contrast, the expectation created by Linux and other open
source programs is that someone can teach himself with help from other people
who are interested in the same software.
Linux and all GNU/GPL software is more than just a backbone of a computer revolution, it is the
establishing phenomenon of a social revolution that is spreading to other fields. Educators, for example, are working on
repeating the successes of Linux by creating open source, free course
materials. This makes very good sense. Why not prepare and video tape one
course by one especially good teacher, and make it available on the internet
to anyone who wants more education?
Open source is an expression of caring. This may be too warm an expression of
philosophy for the comfort of many
people connected with open source software, but open source is an act of love.
There are many ways to express love, and donating your time and brainpower to
the world is one of them.
"Also, Futurepower, please put your full address and phone number in your sig. Thanks."
Gee, this is really nice of you guys. Yes, I know I am an impressive person *grin*, but I can't accept the praise. You are the second person whom I have had to remind that I am not the government. You, as a citizen don't need to see the source code of my programs.
This is NOT an absolute issue. Nuclear weapons are an issue that requires improvement over time. The U.S. government is the biggest proponent and builder of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government is the only organization that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Remember don't say "we" when you talk about this. You aren't the government either, and no one asked you what you thought. If you look over the collection of links in What Should be the Response to Violence? you will see that the secret agencies of the U.S. government do many, many things that very few U.S. citizens would approve.
Governments have very complicated software that implements social security and Medicare and driver's license issuance and other government efforts. The software is written by outside companies usually, and it should be open source, because then citizens can inspect it for the shortcomings that allow government corruption to occur.
None of this causes problems for Linus Torvalds. Linux is the backbone of open source, it seems. A lot of people know how to convert Linux programs to the OS of their choice, so Linux sets a standard that makes programs easy for everyone, even if they don't want to use Linux.
Don't forget, there is no way to put Linus under pressure. He does what he thinks is right. If the German government wants something different, it can fork the code and bring out its own version, and call it GerGovix. If the German government comes to Linus and makes a technically unsound request, I doubt that it would cause anyone anything more than amusement. If the German government writes drivers to make new hardware run under Linux, I think its contribution would be accepted with thanks.
I agree, government documents should not ever be in Microsoft Word format, or in any format defined in secret by a proprietary agency.
You seem very angry in the post, AC. If you read What should be the Response to Violence? you will see that it is angry people who created the terrorism, and that the U.S. government's secret agencies seem ruled by angry people. Arguably, the U.S. government's secret agencies are the world's most active, most highly-funded terrorist organizations. The U.S. government has killed more (many more) than 3,000,000 people in the 30 years. None of those people threatened the United States. Now, the sons and daughters of people the U.S. government killed are beginning to try to kill people in the United States.
Citizens should care very much about how the program works, in many cases. Programs written especially for government implement government policy. Citizens should be able to know if the program works the way the policy says. The only way this is possible is through open source software.
File formats are not a simple situation, either. The problem with Microsoft Word, for example, is that the file format is not only in the format itself, but in all the bugs and quirkinesses of the way a particular version of the Word program uses the format. Word is very, very buggy and quirky, in my opinion, but the bugs are more hidden than in Internet Explorer, for example, which has 18 security bugs (at the time this was written) that have not been
patched. These are active security risks different from the recent 15 that
have already been fixed.
Why would a company that has 40 billion dollars in
the bank let itself get an extremely bad reputation because of software bugs?
It doesn't make sense, and Microsoft is not the only software company that is
self-destructive in this way. Proprietary software is subject to the self-destructiveness that sometimes comes over companies. Open source software protects us from that; if a company becomes self-destructive, someone other group, or even a single programmer in some cases, can take over and help.
Every time someone posts something about democracy, someone posts a comment about the U.S. being a republic. Yet everyone knows what is meant: All citizens are expected to share in the responsibility of running the government. We cannot do that if the workings of government are hidden from us. Proprietary software hides the workings of government from the citizens.
My karma on my other account is at 50. (If there were no karma cap, it would be about 150.) My karma on this account is at 50. I'm not worried about karma.
I think you have me confused with the government. It is the government that must be as transparent as possible. I am not, at present, the emperor of the world.
If you look at stories from the best news sources that are collected at this link, I think you will agree that secrets cause more harm than good: What Should be the Response to Violence?
The stories say, basically, that if there were less secrecy, there would be far fewer reasons to have bombs.
Government administrators should note that it is their duty to insure that all
government work be done on completely open systems. The citizens and taxpayers
of a democracy must have full access to all documents, even 40 or a hundred
years from now. There is NO room in a democracy for proprietary, hidden ways
of doing things.
Slashdot Mirror
Geeez. It's difficult to be surrounded by people less knowledgeable than me *grin*.
Anyone who goes to a movie with a woman either has the wrong woman, or doesn't know what to do with her.
I know how Physics works. You have made the incorrect assumption that I don't know how women work. Actually, I know far more about them than about Physics.
I'm not poor. There are several theatres in the same building; sometimes I theatre switch. The money is nothing compared to the time I would otherwise spend being annoyed and bored.
I'll say it also. Most sociology is just pseudo-science, or just junk.
I worked in a Physics laboratory for 5 years. When I see stupid Physics in movies, I lose interest in the plot. Sometimes I just walk out of the theater.
Those who want to protect their investment in a movie would do well to iron out the illogicality of the script first. The illogicality is not just in Physics; someone should do a web site about the illogicality of the Psychology in movies.
Veritas means truth. If you met a woman who said her name was Virgin, wouldn't you begin to think...?
As above, but with links, done with HTML Kit, a free HTML editor:
Here are a few articles written by/about TJ Rodgers (Cypress' CEO) and/or about Cypress:
On Jesse Jackson (towards the bottom): http://www.reasonvsracism.com/essay_race_century.
http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?
Regarding affirmative action (to a Nun, no less):
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0241.ht
On Second Harvest Food Bank:
http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?
Solar Power:
http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?
He also had an interesting piece in the May 20th USA Today regarding frivilous lawsuits, but I can't find a link to it anywhere.
Thanks for the info. We are saying, however, that Veritas cannot be trusted, aren't we?
CO2 would kill fish. They need oxygen.
The point is that MS Windows has a complicated, poorly explained directory structure that requires you to understand the structure to do complete backups.
Worse yet, Windows XP puts user files and temporary files in the same folder!!
For example:
C:\Documents and Settings\DavidR\Local Settings\Temp
and
C:\Documents and Settings\DavidR\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files
along with
C:\Documents and Settings\DavidR\My Documents
It's mind-boggling why Microsoft does this. Maybe it makes it easier for the CIA or NSA.
Note to those who have always worked with Unix: MS Windows is worse than you've heard.
For several years, Veritas Backup Exec was my choice for the worst software I'd ever seen. It had a database system that sometimes took 20 minutes (20 minutes, not seconds!!!) to find a record. Communication from Veritas acknowledged this; people would otherwise think their computers were broken.
Maybe the other software they sold was better, but Backup Exec was worse than any shareware or freeware I'd ever seen. (However, I'm picky about what I download.)
Backup Exec (which was originally sold by Seagate) was worse than HP backup software (originally from Colorado Memory), one version of which littered hard drives with zero length files. Yes, HP backup software actually WROTE to the hard drive. The file names were names of actual files in other folders. An HP technical support person tried to convince me that this was not such a bad bug.
Another specialty of Backup Exec was incomprehensible error messages.
I agree, forget tape; there are too many cases where it is a write-only media.
A lot of people who say they like their backup software have never done tests to see if they can get the data back. Try restoring to another drive and doing a byte-for-byte compare. You will be amazed at how often backups are not really backups.
In my opinion, there is no important class of software that is as poor as backup software. The software that should be the best is the worst! The reason appears to be that only about 1% of customers actually test their backups to see if they work. What most people accept as good backup software is a slick interface and reassuring backup progress messages.
Note: My info about Veritas is old; quite obviously I would not want continued experience with the company.
Retrospect on the PC has a weird interface. On the plus side, it is the only backup software I know of that can encrypt (DES). Encryption is necessary; you don't want to have to put CD and tape backups in the safe. Note that DES encryption is safe; password protection is not safe.
Dantz was just sold; it is unclear whether the company has management smart enough to coordinate the continued development of a technical product. I've seen some evidence that makes me think the company is very light on technical understanding.
This is all my opinion, of course.
"injecting carbon dioxide into the ocean as an answer to greenhouse warming"
I think it is a safe guess that this idea did not come from a fish.
One way to get elected is to go around to all the rich people and tell them that, if you are elected, you will do anything they want. Such a candidate will get a lot of money to run a campaign; if he can avoid showing the average person the truth, and if the other candidates aren't extremely attractive, it is possible that he will win.
This method works even for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the issues. Selling the government to the highest bidder only requires the intelligence necessary to know that one number is bigger than another.
Maybe Mother's Day and Father's Day should be non-commercial. Just let them know you appreciate them.
I thought your Q & A essay was well reasoned and well written.
Linux is the backbone of a social revolution. The underlying issue of this Slashdot story is not how to build the kernel, but how to manage the part of the new technical and sociological revolution that is connected to having a universal operating system.
Linux has proven to be an operating system that everyone can rally around. Some governments and large businesses have already adopted it. We live in a world in which much of the infrastructure is guided by computer programs, so strong support for efficient methods of using computers is extremely good news.
Linux is a fundamental backbone of the entire open source software movement. There was far less support for open source software when there were 200 flavors of Unix and none were preferred. Now programmers can write for Linux, and can depend that those who have an interest in other operating systems have experience in re-writing Linux code for the OS they prefer. I use several Linux programs in which Windows OS versions are provided by one person on each team who has volunteered to build the program for Windows. So even Windows benefits from Linux.
Most people don't understand the issues. Partly because Linux has become a foundation of organization for a software revolution, this Slashdot story is one of the most important that I have seen in perhaps two years of reading Slashdot. Yet at the time this comment was posted there are only 27 comments rated 0 and above. An earlier story about a small company going bankrupt has five times as many comments!
The really important (and interesting) questions are beyond the comprehension of most people, apparently.
Apparently the reason that many of the really important problems don't get solved is that the problems are not only beyond the solving capacity of almost everyone, but also beyond the consideration capacity of almost everyone. So a problem like this doesn't receive much attention and help.
No sociologist could have guessed how much proprietary software would fail us. Proprietary software companies seem to be competing with themselves to abuse their customers. For example, Microsoft Windows XP expects to connect to Microsoft computers for more than 12 different reasons. Many of those connections expect to have server rights. Some of the "privacy policies" behind those connections provide little actual privacy, and Microsoft and others have changed their privacy policies, and made the changes retroactive, so, effectively, you agree to some unknown contract in the future. (Microsoft just did this with Hotmail, for example.)
The direction that Microsoft XP has gone makes it not so much an operating system as a money-making scheme. There are a huge number of bugs. For example, a P4 system with an Intel motherboard that was upgraded to Windows XP from a fresh install of Windows 2000 just stops on loading. Behind the blue "Welcome" screen, if you think to press Alt-Tab and look, is a message that says the paging file is too small. That's the kind of double sloppiness those of us who work with Windows see every day: An important message that shouldn't be there because the system was just installed is hidden by another screen. Those who work with Windows are often not very knowlegeable and those who are knowledgeable often don't work with Windows. If they did, they would realize that the situation with this proprietary OS is much worse than they thought. For example, the new menus in Windows XP are often 5 to 7 levels deep.
Proprietary software companies often seem not to have the will to produce good software. For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer has 18 unpatched security bugs (when this was written). These active security risks are different from the recent 15 that have already been fixed. Why would a company that has 40 billion dollars in the bank let itself get an extremely bad reputation because of software bugs? It doesn't make sense, and Microsoft is not the only software company that is self-destructive in this way.
Another phenomenon that no sociologist could have foreseen is that proprietary software companies have an extreme mode of failure. The brilliant initial organizers sell out and leave, and the company, in an attempt to maximize profits, hires less expensive people who don't quite have the ability to guide the company through rapid technological change. Customers who chose products from that company find those products increasingly inadequate, until eventually they must bear the selection and training expense of choosing an entirely new company and product. Often the product the first company made just dies. In contrast, although it may become abandoned, open source software never truly dies. Even in the worst situation it is ready to be modified and used again.
The open source revolution is helping strengthen our fundamental infrastructure. When I look at the operation of my local state government, the government of Oregon, U.S.A., I see a lot of inefficiency and insufficiency. One realistic method of improving government operations is to have better software. For example, Oregon state courts send out notices of actions by mail, and sometimes the notices are lost. The Oregon courts do not have e-mail notification (but the libraries do). You can see all Oregon state laws on the internet, but not the cases before the courts. Everywhere I look in state government, there are areas that could be improved with better software.
Humans and computers are excellent partners. Computers do exactly the work that humans don't like to do, the repetitive work. A good computer program enforces exact application of whatever policies have been adopted. This is exactly the kind of discipline governments need, because a lot of corruption begins with small deviations from the rules.
Proprietary software written for governments is no better than proprietary software written for single users. It's expensive. It's exact operation is hidden from both government managers and citizens, who cannot verify how it works. The insufficiency and abusiveness of proprietary software companies slows the acceptance of new and better software into government.
When governments of poor countries use proprietary software, they often create political and social problem for themselves. Sending a representative of a very poor country to the U.S. for training can cause jealousy and job-related empire building. In contrast, the expectation created by Linux and other open source programs is that someone can teach himself with help from other people who are interested in the same software.
Linux and all GNU/GPL software is more than just a backbone of a computer revolution, it is the establishing phenomenon of a social revolution that is spreading to other fields. Educators, for example, are working on repeating the successes of Linux by creating open source, free course materials. This makes very good sense. Why not prepare and video tape one course by one especially good teacher, and make it available on the internet to anyone who wants more education?
Open source is an expression of caring. This may be too warm an expression of philosophy for the comfort of many people connected with open source software, but open source is an act of love. There are many ways to express love, and donating your time and brainpower to the world is one of them.
"Also, Futurepower, please put your full address and phone number in your sig. Thanks."
Gee, this is really nice of you guys. Yes, I know I am an impressive person *grin*, but I can't accept the praise. You are the second person whom I have had to remind that I am not the government. You, as a citizen don't need to see the source code of my programs.
This is NOT an absolute issue. Nuclear weapons are an issue that requires improvement over time. The U.S. government is the biggest proponent and builder of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government is the only organization that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Remember don't say "we" when you talk about this. You aren't the government either, and no one asked you what you thought. If you look over the collection of links in What Should be the Response to Violence? you will see that the secret agencies of the U.S. government do many, many things that very few U.S. citizens would approve.
Governments have very complicated software that implements social security and Medicare and driver's license issuance and other government efforts. The software is written by outside companies usually, and it should be open source, because then citizens can inspect it for the shortcomings that allow government corruption to occur.
None of this causes problems for Linus Torvalds. Linux is the backbone of open source, it seems. A lot of people know how to convert Linux programs to the OS of their choice, so Linux sets a standard that makes programs easy for everyone, even if they don't want to use Linux.
Don't forget, there is no way to put Linus under pressure. He does what he thinks is right. If the German government wants something different, it can fork the code and bring out its own version, and call it GerGovix. If the German government comes to Linus and makes a technically unsound request, I doubt that it would cause anyone anything more than amusement. If the German government writes drivers to make new hardware run under Linux, I think its contribution would be accepted with thanks.
I agree, government documents should not ever be in Microsoft Word format, or in any format defined in secret by a proprietary agency.
You seem very angry in the post, AC. If you read What should be the Response to Violence? you will see that it is angry people who created the terrorism, and that the U.S. government's secret agencies seem ruled by angry people. Arguably, the U.S. government's secret agencies are the world's most active, most highly-funded terrorist organizations. The U.S. government has killed more (many more) than 3,000,000 people in the 30 years. None of those people threatened the United States. Now, the sons and daughters of people the U.S. government killed are beginning to try to kill people in the United States.
Citizens should care very much about how the program works, in many cases. Programs written especially for government implement government policy. Citizens should be able to know if the program works the way the policy says. The only way this is possible is through open source software.
File formats are not a simple situation, either. The problem with Microsoft Word, for example, is that the file format is not only in the format itself, but in all the bugs and quirkinesses of the way a particular version of the Word program uses the format. Word is very, very buggy and quirky, in my opinion, but the bugs are more hidden than in Internet Explorer, for example, which has 18 security bugs (at the time this was written) that have not been patched. These are active security risks different from the recent 15 that have already been fixed.
Why would a company that has 40 billion dollars in the bank let itself get an extremely bad reputation because of software bugs? It doesn't make sense, and Microsoft is not the only software company that is self-destructive in this way. Proprietary software is subject to the self-destructiveness that sometimes comes over companies. Open source software protects us from that; if a company becomes self-destructive, someone other group, or even a single programmer in some cases, can take over and help.
Every time someone posts something about democracy, someone posts a comment about the U.S. being a republic. Yet everyone knows what is meant: All citizens are expected to share in the responsibility of running the government. We cannot do that if the workings of government are hidden from us. Proprietary software hides the workings of government from the citizens.
My karma on my other account is at 50. (If there were no karma cap, it would be about 150.) My karma on this account is at 50. I'm not worried about karma.
I think you have me confused with the government. It is the government that must be as transparent as possible. I am not, at present, the emperor of the world.
"You make the mistake of assuming that Government workers are making these programs."
Government administrators don't write the programs, they set the standards for what is used and what is written.
If you look at stories from the best news sources that are collected at this link, I think you will agree that secrets cause more harm than good: What Should be the Response to Violence?
The stories say, basically, that if there were less secrecy, there would be far fewer reasons to have bombs.
Government administrators should note that it is their duty to insure that all government work be done on completely open systems. The citizens and taxpayers of a democracy must have full access to all documents, even 40 or a hundred years from now. There is NO room in a democracy for proprietary, hidden ways of doing things.