I can't believe that you said that a government service is better run and lower cost than if it was provided by private companies. Actually, I can't believe you didn't get flamed for it! But I do agree completely with your point.
This is stating the chip makers will hit a wall. But would this also apply to quantum computing? Not knowing how quantum computing is proposed to work (just hearing that it is the next big thing), it would be interesting to know if it may also be so constrained.
The article makes me think of that (probably false) story about the U.S. patent director in 1899 saying that the U.S. patent office should be closed because 'everything that can be invented already has been'.
Anyway, I can't wait for the new smaller gears to come out on the new Babbage Analytical Engine. I have my wrenches and spanners out already waiting to install them on my home unit.:-/
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
Take a look at a
recent slashdot posting. Although it says that the U.S. Cancer Institute is going to fund clinical studies, what it doesn't say is that all the original work (including the first preclinical studies) was done in Canada. I know some people who were involved in this. No-one wanted to touch this because they thought it wouldn't work. So a Canadian entrepreneur stepped up and funded the project right out of his own pocket (millions and millions).
As to the Nobel Prize, after reading a biography on Einstein, I kind of get the feeling that it was an 'old boys club'. Maybe it's changed. But the way it worked then was sure you have to very smart, and contributed significantly to science and mankind, but if they didn't like you, no matter what you did you wouldn't win. Einstein only won one Nobel. He should have won several, but he was Jewish. When he did win, it was after being nominated literally about 10 or 20 times, and he actually didn't win the Nobel for relativity either.;-) It was for the photoelectric effect!
Anyway, I did look up the number of medical Nobel laureates over the last 33 years. 45 were American (of which one actually grew up and studied in Canada but researched in the U.S.) and 32 were from (predominantly) Western Europe. So that's about 58% from the States and 42% from Europe (57/43 if you count the Canadian;-). Considering the populations are roughly equal, I would say the fact that the U.S. spends so much more on medicine than anyone else, makes up the difference. So, on the Nobel level, there is a case. But there are more than a few discoveries made elsewhere (an 8% swing to even up). Enough to say that the U.S. system isn't overwhelmingly advantageous. Maybe the large European influence is a helping influence on the Americans:-).
I think the biggest advantage is that the U.S. can work as a single block of near 300 million people, whereas Europe, while being about the same size, is fragmented. I think this lets more money be focused in the U.S. (don't ask me why). In any case, I am glad there are smart people out there doing research. And as an aside, I just checked, it was 1996 not 1991 (Peter C. Doherty, Australia, Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland... from the Nobel web site).
I think that the reason you don't hear in the U.S. about others coming up with discoveries is that the American news media is the about the most biased and slanted that I have seen in the free world. (I am not trying to troll here, I have literally circumnavigated the globe, and have seen quite a few places so can make a pretty informed opinion on this... I think... and that's my opinion.)
The thing is, America likes to blow its own horn. And there is nothing inherantly wrong with that... as the saying goes, it's a sad dog that can't wag its own tail. And I do think America has a lot to be proud of. Including a lot of good science. I sometimes like to say to people who exhibit anti-Americanism (including people I know in Canada... which pisses them off), "so, know anyone who's walked on the moon lately?" (
This doesn't work with conspiracy freaks) I know in this thread that some might think I am being anti American, but it's not that. It's this democratic free speech and discussion thing. I think it can be made better!:-)
However, I do find that when America blows its own horn, it often is so loud it can't hear the contributions played by others. That is, unless the contribution helps back an American point somewhere... like in Iraq when they needed support from England and Italy... and even then, when is the last time you heard about how England is helping in Iraq? They are still there. (BTW, I personally am glad Sadam's gone, but Rumsfeld the weasal should be fire
RE: Do you really think that Canadian medicine is a product of the national health system? AMERICAN pharmaceutical firms charge Canadians less because their government subsidizes/regulates the price. I think you're well aware of this and are just trolling.
Dear Mr./Ms. Troll (aka Anonymous Coward)
1) I post a name so I am not trolling.
2) I post links to my points so I can prove them. Where is your link to prove the Canadian government subsidizes pharmaceuticals? You have none. That is because the government in Canada does not subsidize drugs.
Now, Canadian hospitals will only pay a certain price for drugs. And they can get away with it because they are a large purchasing block. That is market economics that can be practiced here in the U.S. too. That is why many different states are starting to band together to create purchasing blocks to do the same thing (and the big pharmaceuticals are getting nervous about it). This is not subsidization, it is called being smart.
When you go to the drug store in Canada, the store is not getting money from the government to lower the price of the drugs, or to offset the store's purchase cost from the drug companies. The price is what the price is. But it is cheaper than in the U.S. After living there most of my life, I really can't figure out who is getting the pay offs to lower the price of drugs. Please help me out.
As a note, hospitals in Canada are not directly run by the government... they are kept at arms length, and must create their working budgets and stick to them. They must submit charges to the insurance company which is run by the provincial government. This really makes Canada's system more like a single payer insurance company than universal health care. But the end result is very similar.
Now this is a troll (sort of, it might also be considered good advice): stop listening to Bill O'Rielly and the full spin zone, he is a dickhead.
There is sadly some truth to this. However I think that it far smaller than what you may think, and mainly because of two things:
1) There are quite a few medical break-throughs being made outside of the U.S.A. as well as in. As many or more I would say. and
2) I think the money being made is being misdirected. For example, when a drug is ending its patent protection the drug companies pump money into modifying it just enough to get a new patent. And then they spend 3 times as much money on advertising the new drug than they did on the (of dubious use... my unschooled opinion only) research.
If the companies would quit this stupid and basically useless waste of money (in a healthcare sense) then maybe your argument would be more valid. Then maybe the companies really would be funding useful research. Until then, most of the basic fundamental research where the initial discoveries are found will still be conducted where it always has been: in universities around the world, funded by governments. And then the drug companies can still take it from there... if they stop wasting money on bullshit ad campaigns.
:-) Have a nice day sir. Sorry, I have other plans.
I am Canadian but I am living in the States, and have been for 3 1/2 years. You are right, for some people, the medical system is much better. And yes, people who have good jobs have a higher standard of living than those in similar jobs in most any other country.
However you missed the boat on drugs. Drugs are NOT subsidized in Canada. Nor is dental work, nor are eyeglasses. But, patent life in Canada is shorter. This means there is more competion, and medicine is cheaper.
Ah well, you are right Canada does have slow health care. Charging $50.00 to the the morons that show up at the emergency ward with the sniffles (a non emergency) instead of the doctor's office would help Canada afford something better. It happens all the time. This is the one lesson from American health insurance that Canadians could well learn from. It costs about 3 or 4 times the price of a doctor's office visit to go to the emergency room... and that is just to be triaged before treatment!
However... and now a major rant against American health care: You're probably the type who never bothered to notice the clerk at a local store wince because he or she is in pain from a back injury. And you probably don't give a shit that they can't get it fixed becuase they can't afford it on the wage they make, the store they work at doesn't provide health insurance, and they make too much to get medicade. Just as long as you can get your MRI in a day, who gives a fuck about the 70,000,000 who can't get any MRI? But then again, maybe you are also one of those hypocrytical born again Christian assholes who says universal medicare is not for you because the people who can't afford health insurance should stop whining and get a real job like I hear these dickheads say all the time. Like Jesus when healing a lame begger ever stopped to say, "do you have an HMO or a PPO? What, no insurance? Sorry piss off."
It is amazing that a county that outspends by far any other country in the world per capita in health care, doesn't care to make sure everyone is covered. That is the black side of American health care. On the other hand, you may need a long time to get an MRI in Canada, but you will get it whether you are employed or not. And if it is an emergency, you will get it in minutes. Urgent, in hours. Nice to have, you have to wait. I had a shoulder operation after I was hurt... after I was laid off from a company. I wouldn't have been able to afford it here. Canada has also either the first on second healtiest population in the world according the the U.N. That is because everyone has access to basic health care. The mattress store clerk in Ballwin, MO. wouldn't have to live in chronic pain. The U.S. by the way, falls way down the list, below Canada and many of the European Union countries who all have universal health care.
So you want to knock universal health care? And people keep saying Americans are selfish. Can you imagine that? Get a clue.
How come you are charging so much for the Enterprise Workstation? Especially considering you don't have to fund the thousands of programmers who actually create and update the operating system, and only have to pay for specialty tools peculiar to your release (and I know that is not chump change either... but $300.00, come on!). You now charge the same price as MS Windows XP and I believe it is per workstation. Are you trying to be the Microsoft of the Linux world? Yes this is a question and a flame, but I am not trolling.
The people who actually sign the purchase orders for the servers are the ones who make the final decision on what server the company is getting. That's why Microsoft is everywhere, and O/S2 is not. Meaning they are not always the most technical people (I say this even though I think MS is sometimes a good choice... I run Linux at home, and program on Unix at work, so save your flames and trolls).
Microsoft appealed to the masses, including the accountants, purchasing managers, and all the other pointy haired bosses: where do you want to go today?, rock and roll, all your friends will have it too because it's cool, and other advertising that appeals to the unwashed, non-technical masses, etc.
O/S2 (IBM) targeted their ads at the IT professionals who had the technical background to make good decisions: we have lots of up time, our networking is great, the file system won't let you down, other stuff home/desktop users don't give a rat's ass about.
You're right, the people who make the decisions on which server to buy are many times not basing it on what desktop they use, but what system they are used to, and can sort of understand (or at least won't make their eyes glaze over) when the tech people talk to them.
If you want more people to use Linux in business, then you have to get more people using Linux at home. Learn from the mistakes of O/S2.
Of course you may not care if the masses start using Linux or not. In that case... never mind.:-)
The bottom line to me is that what got Linux where it is, has been, and continues to be the cooperation of developers around the world intent on making a good operating system that is available for everyone. When you start placing profit into the mix (which I definately do _not_ begrudge anyone), then you start to do what's best for the profit taker and their specific patrons... and maybe not what's best for everone else.
Granted, I am glad Redhat is around because it does help push the GUI envelope in Linux (as does Mandrake and Susi... and KDE, but I'm talking distros here)... and as much as the hardcore addicts may not like a GUI, it was sorely needed. And they have also helped people to see that some sort of standardization is a serious necessity so others building applications have something stable to work on. Yes I know lots of people realize this, but I think the pot got an extra stir. And a lot of other contributions (by all three named distros).
The thing is, Debian is the one distro with the least (or no) profit motive. And I do know that stability in Debian is always a prime goal for their releases... which is why the release cycle is so spaced out. I just can't wait till the Anaconda (Redhat)installer port to Debian is complete.;-)
Now for my Troll.:-) I keep wondering how and why Redhat charges as much for a Redhat Enterprise Workstation (the majority of the code produced by others) for as much as Microsoft charges for XP. Are they trying to become the M$ of the Linux world? This really has been perplexing me.
Another alternative is to find a way to hurt SCO financially, but in a legal way. Maybe some sort of group action by developers and IT people. Example: Job Action. Don't work for anyone who supports SCO... even if only for a day or two to get their attention. Or some other alternate ways to cause SCO financial pain.
Some people might find this 'union-esqe', but what the heck, power to the people! Or something like that.
OK, I know this is probably only a pipe dream, so don't flame me... but we need to start thinking of ways to fight back. If they have the momentum, then it is easier for them to keep rolling.
Remember to use thought and not emotions... if it's not a Vulcan quote, it should be.
Get all the contributing projects/developers to send cease and desist orders to SCO. When SCO ignores them, find the tobacco lawyers and start a class action lawsuit. Make sure to go for a lot of money.
Solicit donations (which I am sure you will get... I'd contribute at least something) to pay the lawyer's retainer fees etc. With a large well organized and very experienced legal team to back you up, SCO could be fatally hurt, and the GPL proved. Going after them one after the other, individually, you are likely to loose as most developer can't afford the cost of going to court against a corporation. And then a precedent might end up being set which would make it harder to beat SCO for the next guy/girl. In any case, if the GPL goes down, so does the open source movement. So it's in everyone's best interest to work together. It needs a large effort on the order of what IBM can mount.
This is only my two cents, but this crap from SCO has got to stop. Wouldn't it be nice to also be able to go after the people who just bankrolled SCO's attack on the GPL (oops I mean 'invested' in SCO)? We can only dream.
These are only my own rantings. But I know I am not alone when I say SCO is starting to really piss me off!:-):-/
OK, I'll agree... hate is maybe too strong a word, or maybe it isn't. I get quite upset when people want to break up what I think is one of the best countries on the planet. And yes, I have the same opinion about people in B.C. and Alberta who promote the breakup of Canada. And I was born in B.C. and lived in Alberta for 5 years, and have no use what-so-ever for separatists there either. And I also agree with you that the feds need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses every now and then. At least long enough to get some air. But then again, that is the same attitude 99% of the rest of the world feels about their federal governments. Why should we be any different?
I am living in Missouri for a while (hence the 'show me' in the showmecanuck), and I can tell you that I notice more the French influence that all English Canadians get even if they don't realize it (even if it is only in ways that are sometimes too subtle to recognize). And I'm not talking about knowing that Mais de Flucons (I know I spelled it wrong) is Corn Flakes from the other side of the cereal box!;-) The two peoples together create something very cool in style, attitude, and outlook that you can't find here (in the U.S.) or in Europe. It is a kind of fusion that is very good.
So you get mad because you can't get served in French in a lot of places in Toronto (I lived there too for a long time). I know I can't get served in English in a lot of places outside of Montreal. So I use my Francais d'urgence and try to get by because I know I am not in English Canada and need to try to get by. But I do appreciate it if some of the Francophones try to help with some Anglais d'urgence!
Canada is a great country and I am very proud to say I come from there. Especially because of the French AND English.
I just hate separatists. I like Quebec and Quebecers. I hate Quebecois. I like Quebecers. Stop spreading propaganda that English Canadians hate Quebec. The threads clearly show that they only hate people like you that want to break up our country. I don't blame them.
Who was it that said nationalism is based on hate? Oh yeah, General De Gaulle.
Personally, I'd say if they either got rid of their pain in the ass security application (msec... should be m-suck... sorry, I digress), or allowed you to totally turn it off, I would say go for it, it's a pretty good distro. But if they still have it set up where you have to use their security thing, then I will avoid this distro like the plague. Don't get me wrong, I really really like security. But I have my own firewall scripts and monitoring. I don't want their stuff running and messing around with my set up. Ya, I can probably stip out their security scripts if I wanted to, but it is such a pain in the ass I don't bother. A shame because I prefer Mandrake slightly over Redhat. But not enough to use it until they fix this.
I agree with everyone who says Mandrake's package manager kicks the snot out of Redhat's rpm manager. rpm and Redhat's GUI front end to it (especially the GUI front end) suck donkey dongs (and slurp doing it... do I have a theme going here?). So I just use APT. I would say it along with 'Synaptic' works as good as the Mandrake package manager.
But if you really want to know. I'd say download the free version yourself. See if you like that, and then purchase the pro version if you want everything already set up. Or just keep going with the free version and do it yourself.
On the purchase thing... I think every now and again we should all purchase a copy of one distro or another, just as a financial vote of confidence to keep the diversity alive... that's just me though. I last paid for Mandrake 8 Pro (for the record!) P
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe that you said that a government service is better run and lower cost than if it was provided by private companies. Actually, I can't believe you didn't get flamed for it! But I do agree completely with your point.
The article makes me think of that (probably false) story about the U.S. patent director in 1899 saying that the U.S. patent office should be closed because 'everything that can be invented already has been'.
Anyway, I can't wait for the new smaller gears to come out on the new Babbage Analytical Engine. I have my wrenches and spanners out already waiting to install them on my home unit. :-/
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
As to the Nobel Prize, after reading a biography on Einstein, I kind of get the feeling that it was an 'old boys club'. Maybe it's changed. But the way it worked then was sure you have to very smart, and contributed significantly to science and mankind, but if they didn't like you, no matter what you did you wouldn't win. Einstein only won one Nobel. He should have won several, but he was Jewish. When he did win, it was after being nominated literally about 10 or 20 times, and he actually didn't win the Nobel for relativity either. ;-) It was for the photoelectric effect!
Anyway, I did look up the number of medical Nobel laureates over the last 33 years. 45 were American (of which one actually grew up and studied in Canada but researched in the U.S.) and 32 were from (predominantly) Western Europe. So that's about 58% from the States and 42% from Europe (57/43 if you count the Canadian ;-). Considering the populations are roughly equal, I would say the fact that the U.S. spends so much more on medicine than anyone else, makes up the difference. So, on the Nobel level, there is a case. But there are more than a few discoveries made elsewhere (an 8% swing to even up). Enough to say that the U.S. system isn't overwhelmingly advantageous. Maybe the large European influence is a helping influence on the Americans :-).
I think the biggest advantage is that the U.S. can work as a single block of near 300 million people, whereas Europe, while being about the same size, is fragmented. I think this lets more money be focused in the U.S. (don't ask me why). In any case, I am glad there are smart people out there doing research. And as an aside, I just checked, it was 1996 not 1991 (Peter C. Doherty, Australia, Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland... from the Nobel web site).
I think that the reason you don't hear in the U.S. about others coming up with discoveries is that the American news media is the about the most biased and slanted that I have seen in the free world. (I am not trying to troll here, I have literally circumnavigated the globe, and have seen quite a few places so can make a pretty informed opinion on this... I think... and that's my opinion.)
The thing is, America likes to blow its own horn. And there is nothing inherantly wrong with that... as the saying goes, it's a sad dog that can't wag its own tail. And I do think America has a lot to be proud of. Including a lot of good science. I sometimes like to say to people who exhibit anti-Americanism (including people I know in Canada... which pisses them off), "so, know anyone who's walked on the moon lately?" ( This doesn't work with conspiracy freaks) I know in this thread that some might think I am being anti American, but it's not that. It's this democratic free speech and discussion thing. I think it can be made better! :-)
However, I do find that when America blows its own horn, it often is so loud it can't hear the contributions played by others. That is, unless the contribution helps back an American point somewhere... like in Iraq when they needed support from England and Italy... and even then, when is the last time you heard about how England is helping in Iraq? They are still there. (BTW, I personally am glad Sadam's gone, but Rumsfeld the weasal should be fire
Dear Mr./Ms. Troll (aka Anonymous Coward)
1) I post a name so I am not trolling.
2) I post links to my points so I can prove them. Where is your link to prove the Canadian government subsidizes pharmaceuticals? You have none. That is because the government in Canada does not subsidize drugs.
Now, Canadian hospitals will only pay a certain price for drugs. And they can get away with it because they are a large purchasing block. That is market economics that can be practiced here in the U.S. too. That is why many different states are starting to band together to create purchasing blocks to do the same thing (and the big pharmaceuticals are getting nervous about it). This is not subsidization, it is called being smart.
When you go to the drug store in Canada, the store is not getting money from the government to lower the price of the drugs, or to offset the store's purchase cost from the drug companies. The price is what the price is. But it is cheaper than in the U.S. After living there most of my life, I really can't figure out who is getting the pay offs to lower the price of drugs. Please help me out.
As a note, hospitals in Canada are not directly run by the government... they are kept at arms length, and must create their working budgets and stick to them. They must submit charges to the insurance company which is run by the provincial government. This really makes Canada's system more like a single payer insurance company than universal health care. But the end result is very similar.
Now this is a troll (sort of, it might also be considered good advice): stop listening to Bill O'Rielly and the full spin zone, he is a dickhead.
1) There are quite a few medical break-throughs being made outside of the U.S.A. as well as in. As many or more I would say. and
2) I think the money being made is being misdirected. For example, when a drug is ending its patent protection the drug companies pump money into modifying it just enough to get a new patent. And then they spend 3 times as much money on advertising the new drug than they did on the (of dubious use... my unschooled opinion only) research.
Take the acid reducing drug Prilosec for example. When it was coming out of patent protection, the company making it (AstraZeneca) did a bit of research ( Look for this quote here: Or once Prilosec comes off patent, you need to get the docs to prescribe generic Prilosec rather Nexium, the new purple pill that has--you know why it costs so much, don t you? It s those little gold bands on there.... from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE MEDICAID DIRECTORS (NASMD) FALL 2001 MEETING) and came up with Nexium. There are many credible articles on the 'net you can find that will argue that the two drugs have near enough the same effect that it is basically silly to pay the added cost to purchase the patent protected Nexium over the now patent expired Prilosec. (See: How the Drug Companies Deceive You -- The Inside Story of Nexium as one example.) But the company has spent so much money advertising Nexium they often blind not only the public/patients, but the doctors as well.
If the companies would quit this stupid and basically useless waste of money (in a healthcare sense) then maybe your argument would be more valid. Then maybe the companies really would be funding useful research. Until then, most of the basic fundamental research where the initial discoveries are found will still be conducted where it always has been: in universities around the world, funded by governments. And then the drug companies can still take it from there... if they stop wasting money on bullshit ad campaigns.
:-) Have a nice day sir. Sorry, I have other plans.
does my comment hit too close to home?
OK... This deserves a real rant. But we are already off topic enough here. So if you're interested in carrying this on, see my journal entry on this.
However you missed the boat on drugs. Drugs are NOT subsidized in Canada. Nor is dental work, nor are eyeglasses. But, patent life in Canada is shorter. This means there is more competion, and medicine is cheaper. Ah well, you are right Canada does have slow health care. Charging $50.00 to the the morons that show up at the emergency ward with the sniffles (a non emergency) instead of the doctor's office would help Canada afford something better. It happens all the time. This is the one lesson from American health insurance that Canadians could well learn from. It costs about 3 or 4 times the price of a doctor's office visit to go to the emergency room... and that is just to be triaged before treatment!
However... and now a major rant against American health care: You're probably the type who never bothered to notice the clerk at a local store wince because he or she is in pain from a back injury. And you probably don't give a shit that they can't get it fixed becuase they can't afford it on the wage they make, the store they work at doesn't provide health insurance, and they make too much to get medicade. Just as long as you can get your MRI in a day, who gives a fuck about the 70,000,000 who can't get any MRI? But then again, maybe you are also one of those hypocrytical born again Christian assholes who says universal medicare is not for you because the people who can't afford health insurance should stop whining and get a real job like I hear these dickheads say all the time. Like Jesus when healing a lame begger ever stopped to say, "do you have an HMO or a PPO? What, no insurance? Sorry piss off."
It is amazing that a county that outspends by far any other country in the world per capita in health care, doesn't care to make sure everyone is covered. That is the black side of American health care. On the other hand, you may need a long time to get an MRI in Canada, but you will get it whether you are employed or not. And if it is an emergency, you will get it in minutes. Urgent, in hours. Nice to have, you have to wait. I had a shoulder operation after I was hurt... after I was laid off from a company. I wouldn't have been able to afford it here. Canada has also either the first on second healtiest population in the world according the the U.N. That is because everyone has access to basic health care. The mattress store clerk in Ballwin, MO. wouldn't have to live in chronic pain. The U.S. by the way, falls way down the list, below Canada and many of the European Union countries who all have universal health care.
So you want to knock universal health care? And people keep saying Americans are selfish. Can you imagine that? Get a clue.
How come you are charging so much for the Enterprise Workstation? Especially considering you don't have to fund the thousands of programmers who actually create and update the operating system, and only have to pay for specialty tools peculiar to your release (and I know that is not chump change either... but $300.00, come on!). You now charge the same price as MS Windows XP and I believe it is per workstation. Are you trying to be the Microsoft of the Linux world? Yes this is a question and a flame, but I am not trolling.
Microsoft appealed to the masses, including the accountants, purchasing managers, and all the other pointy haired bosses: where do you want to go today?, rock and roll, all your friends will have it too because it's cool, and other advertising that appeals to the unwashed, non-technical masses, etc.
O/S2 (IBM) targeted their ads at the IT professionals who had the technical background to make good decisions: we have lots of up time, our networking is great, the file system won't let you down, other stuff home/desktop users don't give a rat's ass about.
You're right, the people who make the decisions on which server to buy are many times not basing it on what desktop they use, but what system they are used to, and can sort of understand (or at least won't make their eyes glaze over) when the tech people talk to them.
If you want more people to use Linux in business, then you have to get more people using Linux at home. Learn from the mistakes of O/S2.
Of course you may not care if the masses start using Linux or not. In that case... never mind. :-)
go UNDER the elk
Granted, I am glad Redhat is around because it does help push the GUI envelope in Linux (as does Mandrake and Susi... and KDE, but I'm talking distros here)... and as much as the hardcore addicts may not like a GUI, it was sorely needed. And they have also helped people to see that some sort of standardization is a serious necessity so others building applications have something stable to work on. Yes I know lots of people realize this, but I think the pot got an extra stir. And a lot of other contributions (by all three named distros).
The thing is, Debian is the one distro with the least (or no) profit motive. And I do know that stability in Debian is always a prime goal for their releases... which is why the release cycle is so spaced out. I just can't wait till the Anaconda (Redhat)installer port to Debian is complete. ;-)
Now for my Troll. :-) I keep wondering how and why Redhat charges as much for a Redhat Enterprise Workstation (the majority of the code produced by others) for as much as Microsoft charges for XP. Are they trying to become the M$ of the Linux world? This really has been perplexing me.
You may slag away at this, at will.
Some people might find this 'union-esqe', but what the heck, power to the people! Or something like that.
OK, I know this is probably only a pipe dream, so don't flame me... but we need to start thinking of ways to fight back. If they have the momentum, then it is easier for them to keep rolling.
Remember to use thought and not emotions... if it's not a Vulcan quote, it should be.
Solicit donations (which I am sure you will get... I'd contribute at least something) to pay the lawyer's retainer fees etc. With a large well organized and very experienced legal team to back you up, SCO could be fatally hurt, and the GPL proved. Going after them one after the other, individually, you are likely to loose as most developer can't afford the cost of going to court against a corporation. And then a precedent might end up being set which would make it harder to beat SCO for the next guy/girl. In any case, if the GPL goes down, so does the open source movement. So it's in everyone's best interest to work together. It needs a large effort on the order of what IBM can mount.
This is only my two cents, but this crap from SCO has got to stop. Wouldn't it be nice to also be able to go after the people who just bankrolled SCO's attack on the GPL (oops I mean 'invested' in SCO)? We can only dream.
These are only my own rantings. But I know I am not alone when I say SCO is starting to really piss me off! :-) :-/
I am living in Missouri for a while (hence the 'show me' in the showmecanuck), and I can tell you that I notice more the French influence that all English Canadians get even if they don't realize it (even if it is only in ways that are sometimes too subtle to recognize). And I'm not talking about knowing that Mais de Flucons (I know I spelled it wrong) is Corn Flakes from the other side of the cereal box! ;-) The two peoples together create something very cool in style, attitude, and outlook that you can't find here (in the U.S.) or in Europe. It is a kind of fusion that is very good.
So you get mad because you can't get served in French in a lot of places in Toronto (I lived there too for a long time). I know I can't get served in English in a lot of places outside of Montreal. So I use my Francais d'urgence and try to get by because I know I am not in English Canada and need to try to get by. But I do appreciate it if some of the Francophones try to help with some Anglais d'urgence!
Canada is a great country and I am very proud to say I come from there. Especially because of the French AND English.
Vive Canada Unite!
Quebec french is a little different than international french. It is both an older and newer form... it's own dialect.
I just hate separatists. I like Quebec and Quebecers. I hate Quebecois. I like Quebecers. Stop spreading propaganda that English Canadians hate Quebec. The threads clearly show that they only hate people like you that want to break up our country. I don't blame them. Who was it that said nationalism is based on hate? Oh yeah, General De Gaulle.
The whole thing sounds kind of anal to me.
Why don't they call it "pimp hat" and change the colour to pink?
Personally, I'd say if they either got rid of their pain in the ass security application (msec... should be m-suck... sorry, I digress), or allowed you to totally turn it off, I would say go for it, it's a pretty good distro. But if they still have it set up where you have to use their security thing, then I will avoid this distro like the plague. Don't get me wrong, I really really like security. But I have my own firewall scripts and monitoring. I don't want their stuff running and messing around with my set up. Ya, I can probably stip out their security scripts if I wanted to, but it is such a pain in the ass I don't bother. A shame because I prefer Mandrake slightly over Redhat. But not enough to use it until they fix this.
I agree with everyone who says Mandrake's package manager kicks the snot out of Redhat's rpm manager. rpm and Redhat's GUI front end to it (especially the GUI front end) suck donkey dongs (and slurp doing it... do I have a theme going here?). So I just use APT. I would say it along with 'Synaptic' works as good as the Mandrake package manager.
But if you really want to know. I'd say download the free version yourself. See if you like that, and then purchase the pro version if you want everything already set up. Or just keep going with the free version and do it yourself.
On the purchase thing... I think every now and again we should all purchase a copy of one distro or another, just as a financial vote of confidence to keep the diversity alive... that's just me though. I last paid for Mandrake 8 Pro (for the record!) P
My CDN$.028
BillR