It's never happened and it probably never will, and that's because I'm smart enough to make small, subtle choices which result in my living in a relatively disaster-free corner of reality. Password protecting my bank account is one thing, but password protecting my kitchen appliances is entirely another. It's too much work and it's largely unnecessary so long as I don't do anything stupid. But "stupid" is entirely a result of how much knowledge I happen to have.
What happens when a keylogger gets installed on your system? A password on your bank account won't matter. I have to go back again to layered security. I don't mean to preach but if you think a firewall is sufficient security it's only a matter of time before you get hacked. It's that type of mentality that aids in the spread of viruses, worms, and other malware.
Even if I do come home one day to find a creep going through my cupboards, it's not really the end of the world. I'd just kick him out and buy new cans of tuna. I don't have anything on my hard drives which cannot be replaced. It's just not worth all the hassle of being strip-searched several times a week by my own gear.
Do you kick him out before or after he wipes out your bank account?
Well, sure. And exactly for the reasons you explain, I have a front door lock, which would be the metaphor for the fire wall, or in my case, the hardware router I use. But the OS?
The firewall isn't going to stop a malicious program from executing on your local machine. If you're networked at all you need to have proper permissions because ANY application could and probably does have a flaw including the firewall. You don't want that to be your single point of failure. Security is best applied in layers. One layer isn't going to do you any good.
That's absurd. I can take a Linux installation and move it to an entirely new system just by copying the filesystem, or even simply taking the hard drive and putting it in the new machine and pressing the power button.
I love this about Linux. I installed a bigger hard drive on my laptop and I wanted a new partition scheme to go with it and since XFS doesn't support shrinking paritions I couldn't just dd it and resize it. I ended up making the new partition scheme, and then invoking "cp -a" on each folder's contents in the top level directory (except for proc, etc) over to the new drive, installed the new drive and bam it works. That doesn't work with Windows.
Linux still uses different HALs, and while you can use an older HAL to get your image to run on almost anything, it sure as hell isn't going to run well on anything new.
What do you mean by that? It doesn't seem to make sense in any way related to Linux. HAL on Linux and HAL on Windows are two completely different things. Maybe that isn't what you are referring to but then I'm not sure what you are referring to.
I also don't think the driver issue is as trivial as you make it out to be, they still need to be in the correct location and correctly configured, else why wouldn't the Ubuntu install be a simple format>copy operation?
Actually a linux install can be as easy as that. Most distros don't work like that because they want you to select the packages you want to install and then register those packages with the package manager but you can just format and copy and in fact Gentoo's stage tarballs work like that.
What people really don't understand is that buying a used car that gets 20mpg is better for the environment than buying a new card that gets 40mpg. As you said there is more pollution involved creating the car than using it. I don't think it is ever a bad idea to improve efficiency but I hate the pretentious eco-fucks that buy a brand new hybrid loaded with environmentally UNfriendly batteries and bitch about someone who bought a used truck or SUV. It may make them feel like they're doing something to help the environment but they're not. We would be much better off if we just bought fewer cars and maintained them better.
Want to start hald and dbus to get your usb hardware working? Assuming it's already installed, (which it will be if you use the X-User prefab distribution in sysinstall) do the following.
Open/etc/rc.conf.
Enter the two lines, hald_enable="YES", and dbus_enable="YES."
Run sudo/usr/local/etc/rc.d/hald start, or if that fails, sudo/usr/local/sbin/hald, or if you want, reboot.
I don't have to edit any files on my Linux distro to start those services./etc/init.d/hald start will start both hald and dbus for me because hald depends on dbus. That also means that if anything that starts automatically requires either of these services they will start without user intervention.
Want to load the kernel module for your sound card?
pciconf -lv (To find out what it is; similar to lspci, but remember the args)
Once you know what it is, go to look up which module to load. In my case, snd_cmi, for a CMedia card.
Type sudo kldload snd_cmi at a prompt to load the module into the kernel.
Add snd_cmi_load="YES" to/boot/loader.conf to load it automatically next time.
With linux my sound module automatically loads when the hardware is present. I can blacklist it if I don't want it to load or I can turn that feature off. Other modules can be loaded and set to autoload almost exactly as you describe with only the commands and files having different names.
Done. The sound module loaded directly into the kernel Just Works.;) There's no need to screw around with third party userland abominations like ALSA or OSS, and so no risk of either of said abominations dying randomly. (As ALSA did for me over the space of a month with Ubuntu)
Huh? As far as I know OSS is the sound system that FreeBSD uses. It's available, although deprecated, in Linux also. Sound really hasn't been an issue for me and I wonder why so many people have problems. Distribution or PulseAudio issues maybe?
Lack of added complexity means lack of additional things which can potentially cause crashes or reliability, and FreeBSD's devs fairly obviously understand that. It's equally obvious to see that Debian's developers (and Canonical) don't.
Considering the article is bitching about a lack of GUI config tools and the like I don't think REQUIRING people to set up their sound and USB by configuring text files is going to fly with people who cannot even figure out how to configure fonts in a modern linux distro (just a hint: it's extremely easy).
No, ALSA really is garbage. Unstable, finicky, excessively complex garbage. Worst of all, it's actually totally unnecessary garbage.
Why? In FreeBSD, I load a sound driver module into the kernel, and it works. End of story. There is no other unnecessary software layer which simply exists as nothing other than a potential source of problems.
I have been using ALSA since it became a part of the kernel. I don't have sound issues. ALSA works perfectly and mixes perfectly. I think maybe you're confusing issues with pulseaudio which some distros have decided to ship as a sound server. It's not necessary though.
GTK itself isn't garbage, but GConf most certainly is. GConf is the single worst design decision that has ever been made anywhere for Linux, and GTK has since been made reliant on it for its' settings.
What? GTK has nothing to do with gconf. Gconf isn't even necessary for GTK. What is wrong with it anyway? It's just a centralized configuration program.
They didn't need to do it, either. They could have written a GUI which printed the GUI-generated settings as hand-editable dotfiles, but no. Those latte-sipping yuppie CS graduates who write GNOME know so much better than the people who came before them, you see. They just had to invent the current pile of shit that GNOME is now stuck with.
So your problem with gconf is XML? It IS hand editable you know. I'm still not sure exactly what you're complainging about and you don't seem like you even know.
That's still bloated as hell. Mind you, office suites are nearly always garbage, (Microsoft's was no better) but that still doesn't give OO any excuse. The culprit there is the disease called "integration." It was a staple of earlier UNIX philosophy that programs should not have an excessively intimate knowledge of each other's internals, and that was for a reason.
That's still bloated as hell. Mind you, office suites are nearly always garbage, (Microsoft's was no better) but that still doesn't give OO any excuse. The culprit there is the disease called "integration." It was a staple of earlier UNIX philosophy that programs should not have an excessively intimate knowledge of each other's internals, and that was for a reason.
You are making no sense. First of all OO is a freaking office suite meant to replace MSOffice. It's not going to have a zippy startup. There is a lot of stuff in there and without it it wouldn't be much of a competitor to MSOffice and it certainly isn't a detriment to Linux compared to Microsoft. Your second point about UNIX philosophy isn't even relevant to OO. OO uses a documented text format for files, not a binary one. It can be read by other programs without initmate knowledge of OO internals.
That's a good laugh. You've obviously never had apt go berserk and trash your system because you tried to uninstall a single element, which some idiot among the developers decided to declare a critical dependency of the rest of the system (like cups) when there was no sane reason for it to be at all.
Well I know uninstalling CUPS on my machine wouldn't trash the system. If that's really your argument then your issue is with the distro you are using not Linux itself. That's not a good comparison either because what average joe uninstalls the printing subsystem on their computer and why?
So utterly convincing. Even the moron who wrote the original article has more to say than that.
2. GTK, also, garbage.
Another spectacular argument.
3. Gnome, also, garbage. Also, "Install/Uninstall Software" and the MSI format is a package system for windows, and 99% of the time, it just plain works, unlike any system that i've yet used in linux, which breaks 99% of the time.
At least you made some semblance of an argument this time even though it is utter hyperbole. For example uninstalling software in Windows can be a nightmare sometimes. I never have uninstall issues with Linux. EVER. MSI isn't even used on Windows everywhere. In fact a lot of installers DON'T use MSI.
5. I don't think having 200 different command-line web-browsers that support different features, as well as 800 different versions of "midnite file commander", as well as 6,000 different command line tools, really counts as "applications". "Number of packages" does not even come close to "number of useful applications".
True but it's still asinine to claim that there is virtually no software available. I have hundrends of applications currently installed and thousands more available.
6. I have used Linux off and on for as long as it has existed, and have never had a system that did not require my making changes to the kernel to make it work/keep it stable/get it to boot.
Well you should try it again because it looks like the last time you tried it was 10 years ago.
9. OO.o 3.1 takes upwards of 6-7 minutes to load on my Windows box. (4Ghz dual core, 2gb ram) Double or triple that if it did not "shut down properly" last run.
Something is seriously fucked up on your machine. OO takes 15-20 seconds to load here from a cold start on my 2Ghz dual core with 3GB of memory. After that it takes about 5-10 seconds to load.
14. Again, Windows has a standard installation method, and has for several revisions, that works far better than any method the Linux distros have come up with, most of the time.
No it doesn't. Several formats exist and different Windows versions and even service packs can break installations. Each distro has ONE package format that completley integrates with the system and allows for easy installation and uninstallation. Windows is a slew of formats including custom installers that often break during installation/uninstallation. If everyone stuck with MSI maybe it wouldn't be an issue but they don't so it is.
I would have agreed with you before version 0.7.0. Now it makes Windows netowrk connectivity look like an absolute mess, especially XP. I love the profile support, 3G card support, and the fact that my bluetooth applet can create dial-up connections for NM from my cell phone. Profiles are the one thing I was waiting for since NM's inception. Now I can connect to my home WiFi network with a static address and then connect to the Wifi at the coffee shop with DHCP without having to futz around with anything.
All that being said, I think it's an interesting point if it's true. What is being done in Linux that sucks the juice out and why can Windows make do with less?
I don't find it to be true here although the default settings are probably not the best on some distros. PowerTOP helped me eliminate premature battery drainage and is helping developers write better application that suck less juice.
ALSA works fine. Pulse still sucks but it isn't necessary for mixing. I agree that mixer settings are confusing though.
GTK hasn't broken backwards compatibility since the 1.x to 2.x switch. QT4 and QT3 are both installed on my machine and I have NEVER had an issue with lack of backwards comaptiblity with either toolkit. Text antialiasing IS accelerated and can be applied on the fly. Windows fonts may be familiar but they suck. Double, even triple buffering exists on Linux.
Gnome and KDE both offer configuration programs for most tasks. Even Windows requires you to tweak registry settings sometimes. Personally I think the lack of a package manager in systems like Windows is a brain-dead security nightmare. Application development really isn't that hard. I compile all my software and never have an issue with the fact that the software was developed on another Linux system.
See 3.
Saying Linux has few software titles is mind numbing. I have well over 10,000 packages available for my system. Home users don't generally use AutoCAD and most don't NEED CS3. Linux does have some wonderful digital creation programs but it still probably isn't going to be a choice for a professional. Games are a niche and most users don't play more than solitaire. Hardware is an issue for all systems. Vista stopped supporting a ton of printers when it came out. I am a Linux desktop user that has no problem interfacing with my digital camera, wireless mouse, mp3 player, GPS, wireless printer, webcam, and cell phone. Even BOTH of my wireless cards work. I don't own any Blue-Ray titles and from the sales figures I would say I'm not that much different from most users. Of the codecs that are available, their legality is only a question in some countries and there are quality codecs available for purchase. Windows doesn't even come with most common codecs anyway.
The ONLY issue I have had with the kernel in a long time is the current graphics situation. There is a lot of work going on right now with graphics drivers both in the kernel and in the Xserver. This is causing issues for people but a major shift in grahpics driver developement is bound to cause issues. The blame here should be on the distro that released a broken implementation or combination.
This isn't any different than Windows or OSX. The big difference is that pretty much anyone can post a bug for open source software.
I'm not sure what the author is referring to here. I don't find this to be the case at all. Userspace generally keeps up with kernel development pretty well. I would love to know how setting up an LDAP configuration is even remotely common among average desktop users. This is a sysadmin job even on Windows.
This might be yet another distro related problem. OO launches about as quick as Office for me. Perhaps the author has Office preloading.
This is another issue that even Windows has.
-
WTF? Someone just released an application to completely bypass UAC in Windows 7 and Linux is insecure? Zero protection from malware? Tell that to my grsec/pax/ssp/pie system. SELinux is a standard part of the kernel now and some distros enable it by default. Social engineering a sudo password isn't any different from social engineering ANY password. Sudo DOES have a graphical interface.
Old applications work fine for me. Not all of them but most. Many more applications broke from the switch from XP to Vista for most people, including expensive software packages that needed to be re-bought. The last time I had an issue with an old program it was fixed with one line of code: #include <linux/limits.h>. Try doing that with Windows.
Windows doesn't have a standard way of distributing software. Linux does. It's called a package manager. They very same thing that was a complaint earlier. Software policies can be implemented with SELinux and I don't believe desktop versions of windows even support this.
No it isn't. The Orthodox Church may claim that but the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Church all lay claim to the lineage of the original church. Philisophical differences caused them to split.
Not the noisy fundies. The bible. If it is to be the word of God then you are seriously pissing on the religion by not believing it. If the religion is not based on the bible then your beliefs are being shaped by the church which is arguably worse. Or the final option. You are making up your beliefs as you go along (Which is OK!). The problem is, if you are coming to your own conclusions on things you aren't following the religious doctrine and you are just stealing the title Christian which is bound to piss people off. If you say you are Christian because you believe the bible then how could you pick and choose parts of it to listen to?
You haven't studied religion at all if you believe anything you just said. Christians were NOT literalists from the beginning. They couldn't be. Their doctrines were not officially incorporated until centuries after the Church began. Fundamentalists believe the book literally but throughout the history of Chritianity, Judaism, and Islam there have been many periods of symbolic belief and it has been argued that all three devolved into literalism at some point but all were symbolic in nature from the beginning. It isn't uncommon for religions to change over time from symbolic to literal and back again and at any time you will find believers from both camps.
"And God created man in His own image." --Gen 1:27
Seems pretty clear to me, not wishywashy at all. How then can you claim well he meant that as metaphor to something completely different.
There are many ways you can take this metaphorically. A common claim is that God is a reflection of oneself. You have to remember that everything you read has been translated from texts created thousands of years ago. You ALWAYS lose something in translation. Combine that with colloquisms and idioms that are no longer relevant and the meaning and wording can be completely lost. This is my main argument for literalism being inadequate for any religion.
Being an agnostic or an atheist isn't a test for intelligence. I know plenty of moron atheists and agnostics. There are plenty of "God fearing" intelligent people too. They just don't force their views on other people. I myself am an agnostic but I fight with atheists all the time because a lot of their arguments hinge on literal interpretations of holy books and an anthropomorphic god which is not a requirement for religion. In fact all major religions that have been around for a while have gone through periods of literalism and periods of symbolism. The idea of God is a philosophical one not a scientific one. I only take issue with those who claim that holy books are literal and that God can replace scientific inquiry.
If the PL-2303 is supported then just go to your local Best Buy and pick up a Dynex branded USB-Serial converter. I am using one on Linux and it is a PL-2303.
Explain to me how corporations pay taxes. Please. You do realize that all private wealth is held by individuals, don't you? When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
If corporations paid their fair share, like you and I have to do under threat of imprisonment, we could pay lower income taxes. My responsibility is to generate wealth for myself and my family and personally I think mega corporations that pay 2% in taxes are a detriment to my wealth generating ability. I have to give up social programs and pay higher taxes to support these companies that exploit our common resources and give very little to the common good.
The CEO's, board members, employees, etc. Sure they employ some people in Ireland but I'm sure they don't have anyone in the Cayman Islands and the majority of their workforce is in the US.
If the money isn't earned here then tax shouldn't be paid here. Also, people who have their money taxed at earning and want to store it overseas to avoid inheritance taxes and capitol gains I frankly applaud.
Wow. Thank god you are the fringe minority. Somehow I find it hard to believe that those 18,000 corporations in one building do the majority of their business in the Cayman Islands.
What does he think is going to happen? These evil rich businessmen are going to go out and deliver pizzas in their free time to pay the extra taxes? Corporate taxes are exactly the same as raising income tax, except you are paying at the point of purchase rather then the point of earning. The only real point of corporate taxes is to give the government the ability to punish companies that fall out of favor.
You're really going to defend tax cheats? They make a ton of money from US customers and they live in the US but they don't have to pay there fair share of taxes?
It all makes sense after reading your sig...
Socialism is a tool of fascists. Used to ease the minds of the masses and to present power grabs in the veil benefits.
You don't know anything about socialism or fascism. If you really believe your own line then you would be calling pretty much all of Europe fascists. I'm not sure anyone else is really going to agree with you other than other whackjobs.
Considering how defensive you get over this company in the 5 posts you've made in this thread I doubt it.
I'm not getting defensive about SpringSource. I just hate when all the comments are by people making definitive statements about things they know jack about. The attitude "I never heard of it so it must be nothing" is just retarded. One comment even called it vaporware! This stuff is already out there. SpringSource just bought a component already used by them so they could control the whole end-to-end solution. Other clueless commenters are interpreting the summary to mean that SpringSource is going to wipe out IBM and Microsoft. This is about the application framework market not MS or IBM as a whole. It doesn't take a whole lot of reading to figure that out.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when a keylogger gets installed on your system? A password on your bank account won't matter. I have to go back again to layered security. I don't mean to preach but if you think a firewall is sufficient security it's only a matter of time before you get hacked. It's that type of mentality that aids in the spread of viruses, worms, and other malware.
Do you kick him out before or after he wipes out your bank account?
The firewall isn't going to stop a malicious program from executing on your local machine. If you're networked at all you need to have proper permissions because ANY application could and probably does have a flaw including the firewall. You don't want that to be your single point of failure. Security is best applied in layers. One layer isn't going to do you any good.
I love this about Linux. I installed a bigger hard drive on my laptop and I wanted a new partition scheme to go with it and since XFS doesn't support shrinking paritions I couldn't just dd it and resize it. I ended up making the new partition scheme, and then invoking "cp -a" on each folder's contents in the top level directory (except for proc, etc) over to the new drive, installed the new drive and bam it works. That doesn't work with Windows.
What do you mean by that? It doesn't seem to make sense in any way related to Linux. HAL on Linux and HAL on Windows are two completely different things. Maybe that isn't what you are referring to but then I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Actually a linux install can be as easy as that. Most distros don't work like that because they want you to select the packages you want to install and then register those packages with the package manager but you can just format and copy and in fact Gentoo's stage tarballs work like that.
What people really don't understand is that buying a used car that gets 20mpg is better for the environment than buying a new card that gets 40mpg. As you said there is more pollution involved creating the car than using it. I don't think it is ever a bad idea to improve efficiency but I hate the pretentious eco-fucks that buy a brand new hybrid loaded with environmentally UNfriendly batteries and bitch about someone who bought a used truck or SUV. It may make them feel like they're doing something to help the environment but they're not. We would be much better off if we just bought fewer cars and maintained them better.
I don't have to edit any files on my Linux distro to start those services. /etc/init.d/hald start will start both hald and dbus for me because hald depends on dbus. That also means that if anything that starts automatically requires either of these services they will start without user intervention.
With linux my sound module automatically loads when the hardware is present. I can blacklist it if I don't want it to load or I can turn that feature off. Other modules can be loaded and set to autoload almost exactly as you describe with only the commands and files having different names.
Huh? As far as I know OSS is the sound system that FreeBSD uses. It's available, although deprecated, in Linux also. Sound really hasn't been an issue for me and I wonder why so many people have problems. Distribution or PulseAudio issues maybe?
Considering the article is bitching about a lack of GUI config tools and the like I don't think REQUIRING people to set up their sound and USB by configuring text files is going to fly with people who cannot even figure out how to configure fonts in a modern linux distro (just a hint: it's extremely easy).
I have been using ALSA since it became a part of the kernel. I don't have sound issues. ALSA works perfectly and mixes perfectly. I think maybe you're confusing issues with pulseaudio which some distros have decided to ship as a sound server. It's not necessary though.
What? GTK has nothing to do with gconf. Gconf isn't even necessary for GTK. What is wrong with it anyway? It's just a centralized configuration program.
So your problem with gconf is XML? It IS hand editable you know. I'm still not sure exactly what you're complainging about and you don't seem like you even know.
You are making no sense. First of all OO is a freaking office suite meant to replace MSOffice. It's not going to have a zippy startup. There is a lot of stuff in there and without it it wouldn't be much of a competitor to MSOffice and it certainly isn't a detriment to Linux compared to Microsoft. Your second point about UNIX philosophy isn't even relevant to OO. OO uses a documented text format for files, not a binary one. It can be read by other programs without initmate knowledge of OO internals.
Well I know uninstalling CUPS on my machine wouldn't trash the system. If that's really your argument then your issue is with the distro you are using not Linux itself. That's not a good comparison either because what average joe uninstalls the printing subsystem on their computer and why?
It looks like this conversation has to happen at least once a year on Slashdot.
So utterly convincing. Even the moron who wrote the original article has more to say than that.
Another spectacular argument.
At least you made some semblance of an argument this time even though it is utter hyperbole. For example uninstalling software in Windows can be a nightmare sometimes. I never have uninstall issues with Linux. EVER. MSI isn't even used on Windows everywhere. In fact a lot of installers DON'T use MSI.
True but it's still asinine to claim that there is virtually no software available. I have hundrends of applications currently installed and thousands more available.
Well you should try it again because it looks like the last time you tried it was 10 years ago.
Something is seriously fucked up on your machine. OO takes 15-20 seconds to load here from a cold start on my 2Ghz dual core with 3GB of memory. After that it takes about 5-10 seconds to load.
No it doesn't. Several formats exist and different Windows versions and even service packs can break installations. Each distro has ONE package format that completley integrates with the system and allows for easy installation and uninstallation. Windows is a slew of formats including custom installers that often break during installation/uninstallation. If everyone stuck with MSI maybe it wouldn't be an issue but they don't so it is.
I would have agreed with you before version 0.7.0. Now it makes Windows netowrk connectivity look like an absolute mess, especially XP. I love the profile support, 3G card support, and the fact that my bluetooth applet can create dial-up connections for NM from my cell phone. Profiles are the one thing I was waiting for since NM's inception. Now I can connect to my home WiFi network with a static address and then connect to the Wifi at the coffee shop with DHCP without having to futz around with anything.
I don't find it to be true here although the default settings are probably not the best on some distros. PowerTOP helped me eliminate premature battery drainage and is helping developers write better application that suck less juice.
Control-L will save you from moving the mouse and hilight the entire URL.
No it isn't. The Orthodox Church may claim that but the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Church all lay claim to the lineage of the original church. Philisophical differences caused them to split.
You haven't studied religion at all if you believe anything you just said. Christians were NOT literalists from the beginning. They couldn't be. Their doctrines were not officially incorporated until centuries after the Church began. Fundamentalists believe the book literally but throughout the history of Chritianity, Judaism, and Islam there have been many periods of symbolic belief and it has been argued that all three devolved into literalism at some point but all were symbolic in nature from the beginning. It isn't uncommon for religions to change over time from symbolic to literal and back again and at any time you will find believers from both camps.
There are many ways you can take this metaphorically. A common claim is that God is a reflection of oneself. You have to remember that everything you read has been translated from texts created thousands of years ago. You ALWAYS lose something in translation. Combine that with colloquisms and idioms that are no longer relevant and the meaning and wording can be completely lost. This is my main argument for literalism being inadequate for any religion.
Seriously you people need to stop buying into all the whacky conspiracy theories out there. I won't call you a racist but you certainly are a dolt.
Being an agnostic or an atheist isn't a test for intelligence. I know plenty of moron atheists and agnostics. There are plenty of "God fearing" intelligent people too. They just don't force their views on other people. I myself am an agnostic but I fight with atheists all the time because a lot of their arguments hinge on literal interpretations of holy books and an anthropomorphic god which is not a requirement for religion. In fact all major religions that have been around for a while have gone through periods of literalism and periods of symbolism. The idea of God is a philosophical one not a scientific one. I only take issue with those who claim that holy books are literal and that God can replace scientific inquiry.
If the PL-2303 is supported then just go to your local Best Buy and pick up a Dynex branded USB-Serial converter. I am using one on Linux and it is a PL-2303.
If corporations paid their fair share, like you and I have to do under threat of imprisonment, we could pay lower income taxes. My responsibility is to generate wealth for myself and my family and personally I think mega corporations that pay 2% in taxes are a detriment to my wealth generating ability. I have to give up social programs and pay higher taxes to support these companies that exploit our common resources and give very little to the common good.
The CEO's, board members, employees, etc. Sure they employ some people in Ireland but I'm sure they don't have anyone in the Cayman Islands and the majority of their workforce is in the US.
Wow. Thank god you are the fringe minority. Somehow I find it hard to believe that those 18,000 corporations in one building do the majority of their business in the Cayman Islands.
If you don't know then maybe you shouldn't be commenting in this thread.
You're really going to defend tax cheats? They make a ton of money from US customers and they live in the US but they don't have to pay there fair share of taxes?
It all makes sense after reading your sig...
You don't know anything about socialism or fascism. If you really believe your own line then you would be calling pretty much all of Europe fascists. I'm not sure anyone else is really going to agree with you other than other whackjobs.
I'm not getting defensive about SpringSource. I just hate when all the comments are by people making definitive statements about things they know jack about. The attitude "I never heard of it so it must be nothing" is just retarded. One comment even called it vaporware! This stuff is already out there. SpringSource just bought a component already used by them so they could control the whole end-to-end solution. Other clueless commenters are interpreting the summary to mean that SpringSource is going to wipe out IBM and Microsoft. This is about the application framework market not MS or IBM as a whole. It doesn't take a whole lot of reading to figure that out.