Seems he has a bad heart, and the doctors misdiagnosed / didn't bother to tell him that he needed an angioplasty about 8 months ago when the chest pains and dizziness started. Now it's too late, inoperable.
That happens all the time in America. Except in America if you get correctly diagnosed but can't afford it there's no safety net to cover it for you (emergency rooms will only operate if you need emergency surgery right then and there; if you'll die in a a few months or years without surgery that's not their problem).
You might pay more, but on the whole socialized medicine (should) cost everyone less. A company has to make profit, while a government doesn't. A company also has to spend money on advertising and sales, while if everyone had the same insurance, there wouldn't be a need for advertising. This might sound like a lot of wishful thinking, but if you look at how much US insurance companies spend on bureaucracy and non-medical expenses, it's something like 30% of their money spent, while for US medicare it's something like 2%. I don't have a link anymore, but I'll find it again if you want. So, you'd probably pay less under socialized medicine, as most people would. Also, it would mean that if your health needs changed or if you switch jobs (where most people in America get their insurance) you'd still be covered.
Of course, I share your skepticism of the American government. There's plenty of ways they could do socialized medicine right, but they'd probably choose the way that makes their buddies rich while screwing over everyone else.
I think it's safe to say that John Howard, the prime minister, doesn't sit around a waiting room as long as you expect too and that his wait to see a specialist is rather shorter then yours is likely to be as well.
I think it's safe to say that George Bush, the president of the US, doesn't sit around a waiting room as long as you expect too and that his wait to see a specialist is rather shorter then yours is likely to be as well. So how is socialism different than capitalism in that regard? I've never lived in a country with socialized medicine, but I've lived in America all my life and its medical system is anything but fair.
Why is anyone still driving their own cars in a cramped city? We should be building better mass transit systems.
Even if people take the subway most of the time, they often have cars for emergencies, vacations, off-hour jobs, etc. If they're sitting in a cramped parking lot, then they're not polluting or making the roads cramped, so I wouldn't get all judgemental about finding cars in a parking lot.
Novell existed long before they aquired Suse. The agreement not to sue Novell (and for Novell not to sue MS) for past actions is flat out NOT RELATED TO SUSE LINUX. The second part of the deal (the agreement not to sue Novell customers) is exactly as I stated. The actual code being shipped by Novel as SuSE Linux is not covered in either of these 2 scenarios. Do you get it now??
Microsoft has agreed not to sue Novell's customers for patent infringement. If Suse or anything else Novell sells uses technology patented by Microsoft, Novell's customers will not get sued. However, if someone makes a derivative of Suse (or anything else Novell sells) then the people who get that derivative who are not Novell's customers are not immune to patent lawsuits. Do you understand?
There's also the element of atmosphere it provides: If Gordon never talks, and you never leave the first-person perspective, you can go on believing that it's happening to you, not Gordon -- that you are Gordon Freeman.
I hear this all the time, but I'd prefer the main charactor speak because I am not going to be able to pretend a video game charactor is me. I am not a resistance fighter, a PhD, or whatever other traits a character might have (a video game about me would be rather boring) and adding "not speaking" to the list just makes them less like me. I much prefer a character talk and have a developed personality, because that way I'm better able to identify with them than if they're just a ragdoll that follows my commands.
There are multiple parts to the deal, if you don't know what they are why even bother trying to argue with me? In one part Microsoft agreed to give Novell $108 million to release each other from past actions (as in before they owned SuSE) source.
From your source: "The deal also involves patent-related payments. Microsoft will pay Novell a net amount of $108 million in an agreement under which both companies release each other from patent claims from past actions, Hovsepian. However, that will be offset by Novell payments of at least $40 million over the course of the deal to ensure Microsoft won't sue Suse customers for patent infringement." As I said, the deal protects both Novell and the customers of Novell. However, it doesn't say anything about anyone who makes a derivative of Suse, and their customers. Microsoft would still be able to sue them for patent infringement, and may even be able to use this deal as evidence in their case.
If you're having problems installing a program on Linux, then the problem is the developer, not Linux.
Technically true, but practically irrelevant.
If you had a problem installing a program on Windows, would you blame Windows or the program?
You seemed to have missed my main point, which was: if something is taken care of by $DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGEMENT, then you're usually ok (unless one of the inevitable dependencies is broken in some way) - but if it isn't, you're frequently in for a world of hurt.
If it's not in the repository, then.deb is double-click to install (on Debian-based system; I assume.rpm is double-click to install on Red Hat-based systems, and there's probably tools to make both double-click to install).jar is double click to install, and.bin is just "./program.bin" to install. Some.tar.gz programs (like Firefox) are just the program in zipped format, so you just extract it and run it. I've got plenty of programs on my system that are not in Ubuntu's repository, yet I haven't compiled any of them.
The big problem here is that the distros that actually demonstrate a certain amount of stability, and hence be attractive to enterprises (primarily Red Hat and derivatives, like CentOS, and SuSe) are frequently ignored by Linux developers, who like to target the latest and greatest like Ubuntu and Fedora (the affliction is markedly less prevalent in the *BSD world - it's a shame companies like Oracle won't support them). The end result being either a) no packages at all; b) packages that rely on library versions newer than the ones shipped with the distro (recursively leading on to another whole world of hurt); or c) the compile-it-from source option (which typically results in the same situation as (b), only with even less stability).
I'll concede that I don't really know a lot about running Linux in a business environment; I've only run it at home, so it might be more difficult to find and install programs that are more business oriented on more business oriented distros.
Linux is a _nightmare_ of cross-dependencies and ugly hacks to work around them, all in the name of "choice".
See, while I concede that I don't know every distro, I can say that Linux as a whole isn't a nightmare. There are plenty of programs that are easy to install on Linux (or at least the distros I've used). The programs you've installed were difficult, but not all programs are difficult to install, and I think on they are going to improve.
Microsoft just made a deal with Novell that they won't sue Novell or its customers.
Oh FFS, this is the 3rd time in 3 posts I have had to state that the agreement in question covers Novell customers and not Novell directly.
So Novell made a deal with Microsoft that means that Novell can be sued by Microsoft? Sure. Are you even reading what you're writing?
The question is, does this deal cover the customers of the customers of SuSe (and the customers of the customers of their customers and on and on)? The GPL requires that when you distribute GPL software that those who receive it have to have the same rights to the software that you did, including being able to freely distribute it. This deal that Microsoft and Novell have made does not specify that anyone who ever receives code that Novell ever has worked on are immune from Microsoft's patent lawsuits, for they might as well have said they will never sue users of GPL code and they wouldn't do that. Microsoft may also use this agreement to say that Novell admits that that Linux has patented Microsoft technologies in it already (why would they need immunity if they weren't infringing?) and sue other users of Linux and open source software that are not Novell or its customers. That's what people are worried about happening from this deal. Maybe we're overreacting and none of that will happen, but Microsoft spent all that money to do something.
No I am not. Any software you plan to distribute will be handled the same as it always has. You can rebrand and distribute Suse if you see fit. If you contributed code you are welcome to release it under GPL as well so long as it does not infringe on someone elses legal rights. The only thing that changes is that you CAN develop and use portions of MS code in house. If you have access to Windows source code, this may permit you to "steal" portions of that code to make you applications work on Linux.
First of all, I'm pretty sure this deal doesn't cover code, just patents. Second of all, when you contribute code to a GPL project then you're just just "welcome" to release your code under the GPL, you have to. You can release your own applications or even mods to GPL applications under your own copyright, but you can't combine GPL code and nonGPL code together.
And you are throwing around the word FUD? Please go and actually read section 7. I stated earlier this agreement was not about what Novell was releasing but what the customers were contributing. If Novell DID release something "patent-tainted" under the GPL then guess what? They are allowing any recipient, and recipients recipient full use of any patent pertaining to that code AS PER THE GPL (sections 7). Java for instance has several patents, but when Sun GPL'd it, they in effect were releasing any GPL users from any litigations as a result of using or distributing this software as GPL.
Microsoft hasn't GPLed any code. Microsoft just made a deal with Novell that they won't sue Novell or its customers. They made no promises not to sue anyone else, and the GPL can't prevent them, since they never accepted that license agreement in the first place. That's why everyone's so scared about this deal.
Actually, it does. I've been using software for over thirty years. If my experience isn't sufficient to use and uninstall your software, your software is objectively shit. If your software tells me it's uninstalled when it really isn't, your software is objectively shit. If I open a bug that I have personally observed and you close it as "bogus", your software is objectively shit.
I'm sorry you've had problems with Firefox, but I didn't write the code and close your bug report as bogus. All software has bugs and problems and stupid people behind it. If the definition of "objectively shit" for software is that one person has major issues with it, then all software is objectively shit.
You didn't say in the console. You said from the console. Check your post.
Fine, I said from the console.
Because code is text, so every code editor is a variety of text editor. EMACS also contains a vast number of features designed explicitly for the editing of code, so if code editors aren't under consideration, then EMACS doesn't exist.
Text editors edit code, but they don't have all the features of code editors. I can write a Java program in Notepad, but that doesn't mean I'd be comparing Notepad with Visual Studio.
I didn't say vi was shit. I said EMACS is shit. I like vi.
I ASKED at the very beginning if this was a vi vs emacs thing. I asked several times if you could name a better console text editor than emacs, and you never mentioned vi. If you want to say that vi is better than emacs, fine, whatever, but say that. Don't babble around and waste my time saying Visual Studio is better than emacs.
You don't seem to know how to debate. If program X is shit, then give specifics as to why, and give examples of similar programs that are not shit. For instance, say that Firefox is shit because it takes up too much memory, and its downloader is crude and archaic. Opera, on the other hand, takes up less memory and will autoresume your downloads and even includes a bittorrent client. Or, emacs is shit because it is more bloated and harder to learn than vi. See, look, logical arguments that could have backed up your assertions and given us something actual to debate on, but you're too stupid to think of think of them. Gee, that was a great waste of time.
It's *objectively* shit. I hate it. It keeps hijacking MIME types, refusing to let me change the default browser, running after I've uninstalled it, TRYING to run after I've manually deleted the executable... if I hadn't experienced it, I wouldn't believe it. You probably don't.
You don't change the default browser within Firefox; you go to your operating system's setting for default programs (Start->Set Program Access and Defaults in XP) and change it there. Or, you can open another browser and have it set itself as as default, but you can't open up Firefox and tell it that IE should be your default browser any more than you can do the reverse or set Epiphany to be your default browser from Opera. I'm also not sure how you couldn't figure out how to uninstall it, but it's kinda obvious that if you set something as your default and then delete the exe that your os will still go looking for it. Your inability to figure out how to use it/uninstall it does not make it objectively shit.
It doesn't run IN the console, but you can run it FROM the console. Is that not what you meant? Details, details, details. Words mean things.
Yes, words mean things. By IN the console, I meant in the console. If, say, I'm trying to turn a system with 16MB of RAM into a firewall, I'm not going to be using Visual Studio to edit the config files. Or, say my video driver gets corrupted and I want to be able to repair my system so I can run a GUI again, I'm not going to be using SlickEdit (why are you bringing up code editors when I'm talking about text editors?). I'm going to be using emacs (or vi). Of course there's plenty of things I'd use Visual Studio for that I couldn't use emacs for - different programs, different things. Anyways, there's not that many text editors that run without a GUI, and of them, emacs and vi are the best, so I don't know how you say they're shit. Maybe you think working with a console is shit. That's nice. Go have fun with Vista.
Forgot a tag, so the first part of my post was erased.
> Firefox was lightyears better than IE 6
Nice and warm in there, is it?
Huh? Are you trying to say that IE6 was as good as Firefox (despite lacking tabs, transparent pngs, and having exploits that would let spyware and viruses download and install just from visiting a webpage)? Are you trying to tell me to forget about IE6 since 7 has been out for 3 months (because 3 months is such a long time)? What is the point you're trying to make here?
> Firefox was lightyears better than IE 6
Nice and warm in there, is it?
Web browsing is a commodity activity. Eventually, all the browsers are going to be functionally identical. That's normal.
Didn't you just say a couple of posts ago that software developers don't copy because copying is bad for business? Glad you realized your orginal statement was false.
Don't lecture me on browser history unless you know what you're talking about.
It wasn't meant to be a lecture. It was an off-handed comment. Yes, IE7 copied features from Firefox. Yes, Firefox copied features from Opera and Konqueror. But, it's a stong indication that if a program's features are being copied that the program isn't total shit, otherwise why would it be copied from in the first place? Anyways, you never answered my question: what is Firefox shit compared to? If you say IE, even IE7, I'm just going to have to smack you.
There are a great many text editors for a great many platforms which have extensive scripting and macro capabilities.
Are you confusing text editors with word processors? I don't know of any text editors with macros. (HINT: Notepad is a text editor, Word is a word processor.) Anyways, name one text editor that has more features than emacs that can be run from the console. Can you even name another console text editor?
Furthermore, Firefox, Perl, and EMACS *are* awful. They're like big pools of warm shit; once you're deep enough in them, you forget they're shit and just happily enjoy how warm they are.
Compared to what? Firefox was lightyears better than IE 6, and IE 7 blatantly copied the best features of Firefox. It's not as good as Opera, but its not "warm shit" in comparison. Emacs is a console text editor. It doesn't really have any competitors (other than vi - are we getting in a vi vs emacs debate?) because not that many people edit text from the console anymore, but if you need to, it's there. Are you trying to say that emacs sucks because it doesn't do what Word does? Well, Word won't edit text files from the console. Different uses, different programs. What's your point again?
If you're having problems installing a program on Linux, then the problem is the developer, not Linux. Most of the time installing things on Linux is at least as easy, if not easier, than installing on Windows. I've been using Linux (Ubuntu, to be specific) on my main computer for over a year and a half now, and I still have not found a need to learn how to recompile programs from CVS. The whole make/make install/whatever mantra is something I only hear on Slashdot; when I go to the Ubuntu forums to discuss how to do things on Linux with people who run it everyday the instructions for installing programs doesn't get any more difficult than "sudo apt-get install program" or double-click that.deb. If you're having problems installing something, go complain to the developer, because there's plenty of Linux programs that are perfectly easy to install (which means it's not Linux's fault) so I don't see why other programs can't do the same thing.
Ever want to install something that isn't provided by Debian (or Ubuntu, or whatever other distro you're having that uses that wretched excuse for an installer)
Not very often, since nearly every Linux program is in the repositories, but when I have it hasn't been very difficult..deb files are as easy as.exe (double click, next next install),.jar as well, and even.bin takes one line on the terminal that you can usually copy directly from the download website. If I program is difficult to install I blame the programmer. There's so many easy ways to install things in Linux that there's no excuse for them to leave their program in a package that can only be opened with several archaic commands, unless of course they don't actually want people to run it. When I find a program like that I just skip it an find something else. There's so many good Linux programs that are easy to install that I don't need to waste my time with the ones that aren't.
On Linux you need that knowledge upfront. You start with./configure;make; make install. That's when you find that you need a specific compiler to get the app running. Oh, and an extra set of libraries. And a specific kernel release.. And... and...
That's not the common way of installing things anymore; I've run Linux exclusively on my main PC for more than a year and a half now and I don't even fully understand./configure;make;make install. In fact, the first time I ever saw those commands was from someone bitching on slashdot, just like you're doing.
How do I install programs on Linux? I go to Applications (like the start menu) -> Add New Programs. From there, if I want a game, I click Games, if I want Abiword, I click Office, etc. If I'm too impatient to hunt and peck though the categories, then I just go to the command line and type "sudo apt-get install program_name" and that's it. I don't even have to bother with Next, Next, Next. But, if I was truly afraid of the command line, the gui works just as well.
MSFT will go out of business and the OSSFS movement will have an effective monopoly on office software.
However, with the default file format of OpenOffice being an open file format that anyone can use that will mean that if OO ever becomes the most common office suite then other office suites can still easily compete because they can implement the same file format everyone uses with OO, instead of the way it is now where competing office suites have to scrap to attempt to emulate a closed format. Right now, OpenOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, Google Docs and SS and others all read ODF, so there's no way for them to lock each other out of the market like MS Office has locked most other office suites out. It's also not like MS Office would have to die if OO gained marketshare. MS could implement ODF into Office, and then put in features people want at a price they're willing to pay (you can't tell me that businesses wouldn't pay for a professional product done right instead of hoping some free download will meet their needs). Then, it's just like regular competition. Been a long time since we've seen that in office software.
Why would you pay actual money for broadband if you didn't know how to use it?
I've actually met people who've gotten broadband but couldn't figure out how to set it up so they just let it sit. My friend's parents would be an example. She's visiting this week, and apparently they've had DSL hooked up and a new computer in a box since Christmas. She'd set it up for then, but they've got Geek Squad coming next week (no, that doesn't make sense). So she just connected her computer to their neighbor's wireless.
But also, since she was a
non-overweight, non-single-Mom, non-sexually-repressed girl
and this was why she believed that she didn't have to repay the loan, did she pay (at least interest on the loan) in the usual currency of non-overweight, non-sexually-repressed girls.
If he wasn't an asshole about the money she might have.
On a side note, this is why I think people should pay their own way on dates, so there's no expectations of giving something that you might not want to when the night is over. But that's not everyone's assumption, and if he wanted her to pay her own way he should have told her that and let her know how much it was ($100 is pretty steep for a date).
Slashdot Mirror
You might pay more, but on the whole socialized medicine (should) cost everyone less. A company has to make profit, while a government doesn't. A company also has to spend money on advertising and sales, while if everyone had the same insurance, there wouldn't be a need for advertising. This might sound like a lot of wishful thinking, but if you look at how much US insurance companies spend on bureaucracy and non-medical expenses, it's something like 30% of their money spent, while for US medicare it's something like 2%. I don't have a link anymore, but I'll find it again if you want. So, you'd probably pay less under socialized medicine, as most people would. Also, it would mean that if your health needs changed or if you switch jobs (where most people in America get their insurance) you'd still be covered.
Of course, I share your skepticism of the American government. There's plenty of ways they could do socialized medicine right, but they'd probably choose the way that makes their buddies rich while screwing over everyone else.
If it's not in the repository, then
See, while I concede that I don't know every distro, I can say that Linux as a whole isn't a nightmare. There are plenty of programs that are easy to install on Linux (or at least the distros I've used). The programs you've installed were difficult, but not all programs are difficult to install, and I think on they are going to improve.
The question is, does this deal cover the customers of the customers of SuSe (and the customers of the customers of their customers and on and on)? The GPL requires that when you distribute GPL software that those who receive it have to have the same rights to the software that you did, including being able to freely distribute it. This deal that Microsoft and Novell have made does not specify that anyone who ever receives code that Novell ever has worked on are immune from Microsoft's patent lawsuits, for they might as well have said they will never sue users of GPL code and they wouldn't do that. Microsoft may also use this agreement to say that Novell admits that that Linux has patented Microsoft technologies in it already (why would they need immunity if they weren't infringing?) and sue other users of Linux and open source software that are not Novell or its customers. That's what people are worried about happening from this deal. Maybe we're overreacting and none of that will happen, but Microsoft spent all that money to do something.
Fine, I said from the console.
Text editors edit code, but they don't have all the features of code editors. I can write a Java program in Notepad, but that doesn't mean I'd be comparing Notepad with Visual Studio.
I ASKED at the very beginning if this was a vi vs emacs thing. I asked several times if you could name a better console text editor than emacs, and you never mentioned vi. If you want to say that vi is better than emacs, fine, whatever, but say that. Don't babble around and waste my time saying Visual Studio is better than emacs.
You don't seem to know how to debate. If program X is shit, then give specifics as to why, and give examples of similar programs that are not shit. For instance, say that Firefox is shit because it takes up too much memory, and its downloader is crude and archaic. Opera, on the other hand, takes up less memory and will autoresume your downloads and even includes a bittorrent client. Or, emacs is shit because it is more bloated and harder to learn than vi. See, look, logical arguments that could have backed up your assertions and given us something actual to debate on, but you're too stupid to think of think of them. Gee, that was a great waste of time.
Yes, words mean things. By IN the console, I meant in the console. If, say, I'm trying to turn a system with 16MB of RAM into a firewall, I'm not going to be using Visual Studio to edit the config files. Or, say my video driver gets corrupted and I want to be able to repair my system so I can run a GUI again, I'm not going to be using SlickEdit (why are you bringing up code editors when I'm talking about text editors?). I'm going to be using emacs (or vi). Of course there's plenty of things I'd use Visual Studio for that I couldn't use emacs for - different programs, different things. Anyways, there's not that many text editors that run without a GUI, and of them, emacs and vi are the best, so I don't know how you say they're shit. Maybe you think working with a console is shit. That's nice. Go have fun with Vista.
Huh? Are you trying to say that IE6 was as good as Firefox (despite lacking tabs, transparent pngs, and having exploits that would let spyware and viruses download and install just from visiting a webpage)? Are you trying to tell me to forget about IE6 since 7 has been out for 3 months (because 3 months is such a long time)? What is the point you're trying to make here?
Didn't you just say a couple of posts ago that software developers don't copy because copying is bad for business? Glad you realized your orginal statement was false.
It wasn't meant to be a lecture. It was an off-handed comment. Yes, IE7 copied features from Firefox. Yes, Firefox copied features from Opera and Konqueror. But, it's a stong indication that if a program's features are being copied that the program isn't total shit, otherwise why would it be copied from in the first place? Anyways, you never answered my question: what is Firefox shit compared to? If you say IE, even IE7, I'm just going to have to smack you.
Are you confusing text editors with word processors? I don't know of any text editors with macros. (HINT: Notepad is a text editor, Word is a word processor.) Anyways, name one text editor that has more features than emacs that can be run from the console. Can you even name another console text editor?
Seriously though, it was a decent idea. Props on winning Best Suggestion.
If you're having problems installing a program on Linux, then the problem is the developer, not Linux. Most of the time installing things on Linux is at least as easy, if not easier, than installing on Windows. I've been using Linux (Ubuntu, to be specific) on my main computer for over a year and a half now, and I still have not found a need to learn how to recompile programs from CVS. The whole make/make install/whatever mantra is something I only hear on Slashdot; when I go to the Ubuntu forums to discuss how to do things on Linux with people who run it everyday the instructions for installing programs doesn't get any more difficult than "sudo apt-get install program" or double-click that .deb. If you're having problems installing something, go complain to the developer, because there's plenty of Linux programs that are perfectly easy to install (which means it's not Linux's fault) so I don't see why other programs can't do the same thing.
How do I install programs on Linux? I go to Applications (like the start menu) -> Add New Programs. From there, if I want a game, I click Games, if I want Abiword, I click Office, etc. If I'm too impatient to hunt and peck though the categories, then I just go to the command line and type "sudo apt-get install program_name" and that's it. I don't even have to bother with Next, Next, Next. But, if I was truly afraid of the command line, the gui works just as well.
Also "wether".
On a side note, this is why I think people should pay their own way on dates, so there's no expectations of giving something that you might not want to when the night is over. But that's not everyone's assumption, and if he wanted her to pay her own way he should have told her that and let her know how much it was ($100 is pretty steep for a date).