Cross platform dosen't mean squat when your dealing with an office enviorment that in most cases is based on a windows deployment.
Not true. I'm a helpdesk manager, and cross-platform would help us. We have pretty much half windows machines and half macs, and one Linux desktop (mine). The Windows people are generally fine, but we have two problems there. First, Outlook can get weird about connecting to exchange from outside the network (issue with people with laptops). Evolution connecting through WebDAV would circumvent this issue. I know this because those using Entourage don't have THAT problem. Second, Outlook seems to have been designed with the image of e-mail usage as a small number of people sending text-only messages-- which is to say it doesn't handle itself well once you get lots of messages with large attachments.
People using Entourage have different problems. No viewing public folders, for example. Exchange support was sort-of hacked in, and Microsoft just did a bad job with the program. Not that the interface is bad, it's just flakey with all sorts of problems.
So I'm the only one using Evolution, and I have no problems to speak of. It seems to handle larger mailboxes with greater stability than Outlook (though I'm not sure, since I only have myself to test on).
Cross-platform solutions are terrific in IT. It means you can have the SAME software for all your clients. It means fewer variables when it comes to support, and you only have to train on one piece of software which is the same on all platforms.
Plus, it gives you greater flexibility for the future (in terms of OS). If there were good native ports for OpenOffice and Evolution on Mac, and a port of Evolution for Windows, then I might very well be able to convince my company to start using those apps on EVERYONE's desktop, Mac or Windows.
Once you are using cross-platform software, you aren't bound to your OS anymore. Your organization is OS independant. They get used to running the software (OpenOffice, Evolution, Firefox are what 80% of my users really need) and then they don't even need to know what OS they're running, because the app is the same. Then I have to worry less about my user's Mac/PC preference, and the idea of migrating some people over to Linux becomes much more reasonable.
This would be a boon for many IT organizations, especially considering some of the strongarm tactics MS has been using as of late.
Besides for people using a different platform then windows there is the web based exchange mail for people who cant connect using outlook.
Yeah, sure, but it's not the same thing. I can also set everyone up to run Outlook off of my Citrix server (which would work better for us than web access), but again, it's a less-than-ideal solution. A strong cross-platform Exchange client would help us out considerably.
Oh, and if only Evolution was ported to run natively on OS X and Windows, I think the feature of being cross-platform would be enough to put it over the edge as the "superior product".
So here's hoping that Mozilla will make a product as good as Evolution, running equally well on Windows, Mac, and Unix-alike.
I hate Microsoft Windows as much as the next guy, but Outlook has them beat. If only it worked on Linux.
Actually, Novell's (formerly Ximian's) Evolution is perhaps the best Exchange client I've used. I say 'perhaps' because I can certainly see arguments made that Outlook 2003 has it beat, but even so, not by much.
Evolution certainly tops Microsoft Entourage 2004 and Apple's Mail. I've found it to be extremely stable, and in some ways more flexible than Outlook. If you're wishing for Outlook on Linux, I'd suggest you check Evolution out.
And your arguments make you a marketing department's dream: you only raise points that are based on emotion: "overall experience", "aspire", "a feel thats pretty nice".
And you know what? That emotional appeal is what drives purchasing behavior. It's not all that unreasonable, either, when you think about it. If I'm carrying a device around all the time and using it every day, and I can use:
A) a device looks good, has a pleasant "overall experience", and generally makes me feel good, or...
B)device that's ugly, is painful to operate, and makes me feel like a schmo to carry it around, but has slightly better specs...
In that case, is it really so unreasonable to go with the pretty device?
Even geeks make purchases based on emotion. The only difference is they're driven by the emotional attachment to the idea of "powerful" rather than "pretty". Or they buy hard-to-use items to make themselves feel smart for being one of the elite who can use it. Or they specifically buy ugly devices so that they don't feel like "a mindless building block of consumerism."
So, I hope you understand that there are some marketers somewhere meeting about these iRiver devices, saying, "It's great. The mindless building blocks of consumerism that want to think they aren't mindless blocks of consumerism are eating our products up! They've fallen into our emotional appeal of being 'anti-iPod'."
This seems awfully rude to me. What gives? Your criticism doesn't even appear to be correct.
I'm not knowledgable about any of this, but if you read soullessbastard's posts, it seems he *does* work WITH the OOo project. Right in his disclaimer: "Disclaimer: I am a member of the OOo Mac OS X 'team'..."
In another post, he says:
Part of the problem is that OpenOffice.org really isn't a "team"...it's primarily Sun Microsystems. Sun has four priorities: Linux x86, Windows, Solaris, and Solaris x86. Sun pays no one to work on Mac OS X support. Since it isn't one of their priorities, they frequently code without keeping the special needs of Mac OS X in mind, doing stupid things like hard-coding shared library extensions to only be ".dll" or ".so", neither of which are used by Mac OS X. They can't claim ignorance since folks have been trying to write Mac OS X code for over three years now, but yet they still don't even keep simple compatibility needs like that in mind.
Now, I don't know if that's a fair criticism of OOo, but it doesn't sound too far off.
Anyway, I'm just someone who would really like to have OOo running natively on Mac and will be greatful to whatever developers make that closer to a reality.
I'm inclined to cut them a little slack. From what I've read, it sounds like it's been hard work to get this thing operational, and they haven't been getting a whole lot of support.
I'm sure they understand the interface isn't all that it should be, but it is a beta (they aren't done), and you generally worry about fixing up the interface *after* you get the program *running*.
Now, if only someone would make a native OSX port of Evolution.
I'll have to look in more depth later and see if any of the products they reviewed were SA-based.
From what I gather, there were. They're saying they couldn't review SpamAssassin as such because you're dealing with a community and not a company, but they do have SpamAssassin based products.
Wilco, or someone like that, chose to distribute their own album over P2P a while back when their label didn't want to release it. Right? Anyone else remember that, or am I crazy?
I mean, even if we were to submit that P2P was used for distributing copyrighted material, distributing copyrighted material isn't necessarily infringement. Specifically, if it's the copyright holder who instigates the distribution, P2P becomes a wholly legal distribution method.
IANAL, but any musicians out there who want to help the P2P cause, I'd say start sharing some samples of your work. Put something in the ID3 tag saying what your license is, and distribute even a few songs. Then, if someone sues to shut down the network, counter-sue for a violation of your freedom of speech. Argue they're asking the government to shut down your method of distribution without any compensation or something. Seems like a clever lawyer should be able to make some kind of case.
I'm not sure about the boy/girl distinction, but it does seem to me that the trial&error break-it/fix-it cycle does seem to be a better way of learning about computers. Probably all sorts of other things, too, but I'm quite sure book-learning isn't the best way to learn to operate or repair computers.
First, because computers are so much about convention that they'll never make sense unless you just jump in and start using it. Second, because books so often tell you how a computer should work, but rarely give you much information about how it is working when it isn't working properly.
That's been my experience, anyway.
The big distinction is, I will check documentation for specific information. Like, back when there was no such thing as a jumperless motherboard, you'd check the motherboard documentation for the correct jumper configuration for the processor you're using. Beyond that sort of info, I usually figure it out myself or go for online forums.
...it seems like the Mozilla Suite is becoming the "Legacy Trunk", and Firebox & Thunderbird are the next-generation R&D releases.
It seems if we could dedicate more developers to a single development tree, it would be more efficient? Just one primary development trunk, no need to sync in changes from Firefox/Thunderbird -> Mozilla and from Mozilla -> Firefox/Thunderbird.
Firefox is the actively developed application, and Mozilla is in maintenance mode. Like you said, it's the "Legacy Trunk". I don't think they're syncing changes between Firefox/Thunderbird and Mozilla so much as back-porting a selection of bug and security fixes so as to not-abandon the Mozilla Suite installed base.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Firefox and Thunderbird were already meant to be "replacements" for Mozilla. They've both hit 1.0, and they're supposed to replace Mozilla. Now.
Now, the some of the fixes developed in Firebird and Thunderbird are being back-ported just as maintenance for people still using Seamonkey, but the suite isn't being actively developed.
So it's not that Firebird/Thunderbird isn't replacing Seamonkey, but the Mozilla developers are being considerate to those who haven't moved off of Seamonkey yet, especially since there is still some functionality that hasn't been accounted for yet (like composer and chat).
It'd be nice if the Mozilla foundation would be a little more explicit about this, but they do talk about it some in their development pages.
This may be off topic, but I'll bring it up anyway: I find g4u (ghost for unix) a pretty good tool for what you're looking to do. It's a small bootable disk image (so it can be put on floppy or cd) that will boot into NetBSD and it can clone disks or upload/download bit-for-bit images to/from an FTP site of your choosing.
It doesn't do everything (not by any means). All it does is give you bit-for-bit clones and images of a complete hard drive or partition, including empty space. But it does what it does in a simple, easy, trouble-free manner.
Depending on the political environment, IT may or may not have the authority to impose such restrictions. If IT does not, then it would be prudent of IT to inform those who do have the authority of the risks, consequences, and measures that can be taken to ensure a secure computing environment.
This is really important. The big issue here is, power and responsibility cannot be separated. If IT has the power to impose restrictions, then impose them. You can try to put a friendly face on it and everything, but ultimately, if it's your prerogative, then it's your prerogative. There will always be some random computer-illiterate egomaniac that feels slighted no matter what you do.
If, however, you do not have the power to enforce rules and make changes, then be very clear with whoever does have that power: If you don't impose the security recommendations made by the IT staff, the IT staff cannot be held responsible for the security holes present on the network. Put it in writing and keep a copy: "These are my recommendations..... If you don't follow these recommendations, here are some possible consequences..... What's your decision?" Try to get the response in writing and keep a copy of that.
I mean, ultimately, if it's not your responsibility and you have no power to do anything about it, then you can only raise the issue with the person who has power. If they're telling you it is your responsibility but that you have no power, then that's your real problem, not security issues.
That being said, if you just want to put a happy face on the process, bundle your access restrictions with upgrades and fixes.
If their computer is running slow from spyware, then while you're removing it and patching their system, lock down their access. Pretend you've installed something that, as a side effect, restricts their access, but it's really a "security fix" that will prevent spyware in the future. It's true enough-- you've fixed the security scheme in such a way as to prevent further access. Pretend it's completely out of your hands-- Microsoft did it. The computer is stupid. People who don't know anything about computers love it when the computer guy says the computer is stupid.
If you can, install a bunch of improvements and software updates that the user will find noticeable-- like I've done it while installing a PDF writer, for example. Hope that this will associate in their minds the idea of these "security improvements" with improved functionality.
Finally, and this is important, get out of their office quickly and answering as few questions as possible. Avoid contact for a little while and hope they just get over being annoyed and grow accustomed to their new access level.
Oh, and keep drilling it into their heads that the reason those sites that require low security in IE are *broken*. I don't care if the sites say IE isn't set up properly, it's because the page is *broken*. The people who made that site are *stupid*. Or they're *hackers*. Just keep saying it.
By that token, why are fiction books so serious? Did War and Peace really change anyones life? Did someone get a great epiphany reading To Kill a Mockingbird or A Farewell to Arms?
You can tell a great story in any form, books, TV, movies, or in a video game. The truly great ones don't need an award.
Most of the best movies I've seen never won an Oscars, most of the best books I've read never won a pulitzer, most of my favorite TV shows don't win Emmys, and most video games I really like won't get 9 stars at EGM or win any votes. It's irrelevant.
I'll agree with that. In fact, if a book has won a Pulitzer or Nobel prize, or to a lesser extent, if a movie has won an Oscar, my "pretentious bullsh*t" radar goes up. Not necessarily that it IS pretentious bullsh*t, but I'm on the lookout.
Plus, there may have been games that have changed my life. I'd have to think about that one, but I'm not prepared to rule it out without thinking on it. I'll definitely say that there are games that rise above being "merely entertainment" in the way that Jerry Bruckheimer films are "merely entertainment". Anyone actually play all the way through all the GTA3 games? I'm still working on San Andreas, but there's a decent story there, with some interesting twists, good action, and good voice-work. It's not quite art-house, but I would probably put them in roughly the same category as the Spiderman movies, which is to say they have qualities so as to be entertaining to someone looking merely to be entertained by a mindless explosion-fest, but there are plenty of more interesting things going on.
Being popular doesnt mean being great, and take awards shows for what they are - popularity contest. At some point some group, large or small, votes on the winners using whatever arbitrary method they use. There are no metrics, nothing you can measure to say "this game is bigger/faster/better than that one".
You know, I also think it's wrong to compare this to the Oscars. Not because video games are a lesser art medium than film, but because of whose backing the awards. Compare the SpikeTV video game award show to the MTV movie award show, and things make much more sense.
Except for the Constitution was written quite a while ago. The second amendment was written at a time where there was no such thing as a centralized police force, no FBI
Except the second amendment was not written to protect your right to defend yourself against criminals. That just wasn't the intention. It was specifically meant to protect you from the government. Whenever I hear someone complaining about the second amendment, it seems they always take it for granted that the ammendment was meant to protect either your right to hunt or your right to protect yourself from criminals. It just completely misses the point.
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms explicitly for the purpose of forming a militia. Read: the right to own military-grade weaponry. Read the bill of rights again-- the entire bill of rights was intended to guarantee the people's right to revolt.
Yes, I have heard all about the point that guns are needed because you keep the government and the army in check. That may be partially true. However, there are plenty of other democracies out there and they seem to function without this explicit need.
Uhh... yeah, sure, that can happen. But how many non-democratic and oppressive governments guarantee their citizens the right to bear arms? Well, how many do you know of?
When you're living in a country with a powerful military and the citizens have no ability to defend themselves with force, the freedom of the citizens in that country is determined by the benevolence of those in charge. In any given case, that might happen. The ruling class may very well be benevolent. Not in Hitler's case, though. (just an example)
However, it's very hard to imagine an oppressive government being sustained for long with an armed citizenry (meaning, *everyone* has a right to bear military-grade weapons).
Slashdot Mirror
Ladies, ladies, please. 'Zeitgeist' is perfectly cromulent.
Who's the close-minded one?
Not true. I'm a helpdesk manager, and cross-platform would help us. We have pretty much half windows machines and half macs, and one Linux desktop (mine). The Windows people are generally fine, but we have two problems there. First, Outlook can get weird about connecting to exchange from outside the network (issue with people with laptops). Evolution connecting through WebDAV would circumvent this issue. I know this because those using Entourage don't have THAT problem. Second, Outlook seems to have been designed with the image of e-mail usage as a small number of people sending text-only messages-- which is to say it doesn't handle itself well once you get lots of messages with large attachments.
People using Entourage have different problems. No viewing public folders, for example. Exchange support was sort-of hacked in, and Microsoft just did a bad job with the program. Not that the interface is bad, it's just flakey with all sorts of problems.
So I'm the only one using Evolution, and I have no problems to speak of. It seems to handle larger mailboxes with greater stability than Outlook (though I'm not sure, since I only have myself to test on).
Cross-platform solutions are terrific in IT. It means you can have the SAME software for all your clients. It means fewer variables when it comes to support, and you only have to train on one piece of software which is the same on all platforms.
Plus, it gives you greater flexibility for the future (in terms of OS). If there were good native ports for OpenOffice and Evolution on Mac, and a port of Evolution for Windows, then I might very well be able to convince my company to start using those apps on EVERYONE's desktop, Mac or Windows.
Once you are using cross-platform software, you aren't bound to your OS anymore. Your organization is OS independant. They get used to running the software (OpenOffice, Evolution, Firefox are what 80% of my users really need) and then they don't even need to know what OS they're running, because the app is the same. Then I have to worry less about my user's Mac/PC preference, and the idea of migrating some people over to Linux becomes much more reasonable.
This would be a boon for many IT organizations, especially considering some of the strongarm tactics MS has been using as of late.
Besides for people using a different platform then windows there is the web based exchange mail for people who cant connect using outlook.
Yeah, sure, but it's not the same thing. I can also set everyone up to run Outlook off of my Citrix server (which would work better for us than web access), but again, it's a less-than-ideal solution. A strong cross-platform Exchange client would help us out considerably.
So here's hoping that Mozilla will make a product as good as Evolution, running equally well on Windows, Mac, and Unix-alike.
Actually, Novell's (formerly Ximian's) Evolution is perhaps the best Exchange client I've used. I say 'perhaps' because I can certainly see arguments made that Outlook 2003 has it beat, but even so, not by much.
Evolution certainly tops Microsoft Entourage 2004 and Apple's Mail. I've found it to be extremely stable, and in some ways more flexible than Outlook. If you're wishing for Outlook on Linux, I'd suggest you check Evolution out.
It's GPL'ed now, right? So why not? Anyone know?
And you know what? That emotional appeal is what drives purchasing behavior. It's not all that unreasonable, either, when you think about it. If I'm carrying a device around all the time and using it every day, and I can use:
In that case, is it really so unreasonable to go with the pretty device?Even geeks make purchases based on emotion. The only difference is they're driven by the emotional attachment to the idea of "powerful" rather than "pretty". Or they buy hard-to-use items to make themselves feel smart for being one of the elite who can use it. Or they specifically buy ugly devices so that they don't feel like "a mindless building block of consumerism."
So, I hope you understand that there are some marketers somewhere meeting about these iRiver devices, saying, "It's great. The mindless building blocks of consumerism that want to think they aren't mindless blocks of consumerism are eating our products up! They've fallen into our emotional appeal of being 'anti-iPod'."
Seriously.
I'm not knowledgable about any of this, but if you read soullessbastard's posts, it seems he *does* work WITH the OOo project. Right in his disclaimer: "Disclaimer: I am a member of the OOo Mac OS X 'team'..."
In another post, he says:
Now, I don't know if that's a fair criticism of OOo, but it doesn't sound too far off.Anyway, I'm just someone who would really like to have OOo running natively on Mac and will be greatful to whatever developers make that closer to a reality.
I'm sure they understand the interface isn't all that it should be, but it is a beta (they aren't done), and you generally worry about fixing up the interface *after* you get the program *running*.
Now, if only someone would make a native OSX port of Evolution.
don't forget Poland.
From what I gather, there were. They're saying they couldn't review SpamAssassin as such because you're dealing with a community and not a company, but they do have SpamAssassin based products.
I mean, even if we were to submit that P2P was used for distributing copyrighted material, distributing copyrighted material isn't necessarily infringement. Specifically, if it's the copyright holder who instigates the distribution, P2P becomes a wholly legal distribution method.
IANAL, but any musicians out there who want to help the P2P cause, I'd say start sharing some samples of your work. Put something in the ID3 tag saying what your license is, and distribute even a few songs. Then, if someone sues to shut down the network, counter-sue for a violation of your freedom of speech. Argue they're asking the government to shut down your method of distribution without any compensation or something. Seems like a clever lawyer should be able to make some kind of case.
First, because computers are so much about convention that they'll never make sense unless you just jump in and start using it. Second, because books so often tell you how a computer should work, but rarely give you much information about how it is working when it isn't working properly.
That's been my experience, anyway.
The big distinction is, I will check documentation for specific information. Like, back when there was no such thing as a jumperless motherboard, you'd check the motherboard documentation for the correct jumper configuration for the processor you're using. Beyond that sort of info, I usually figure it out myself or go for online forums.
Therefore, I think I need to ask the question: how do we analyze our analysis of workflow analysis?
Personally, I'd still like to see a Mozilla version. Nvu just doesn't seem to me to be up-to-snuff with Firebird and Thunderbird.
It seems if we could dedicate more developers to a single development tree, it would be more efficient? Just one primary development trunk, no need to sync in changes from Firefox/Thunderbird -> Mozilla and from Mozilla -> Firefox/Thunderbird.
Firefox is the actively developed application, and Mozilla is in maintenance mode. Like you said, it's the "Legacy Trunk". I don't think they're syncing changes between Firefox/Thunderbird and Mozilla so much as back-porting a selection of bug and security fixes so as to not-abandon the Mozilla Suite installed base.
At least that's my impression.
Now, the some of the fixes developed in Firebird and Thunderbird are being back-ported just as maintenance for people still using Seamonkey, but the suite isn't being actively developed.
So it's not that Firebird/Thunderbird isn't replacing Seamonkey, but the Mozilla developers are being considerate to those who haven't moved off of Seamonkey yet, especially since there is still some functionality that hasn't been accounted for yet (like composer and chat).
It'd be nice if the Mozilla foundation would be a little more explicit about this, but they do talk about it some in their development pages.
It doesn't do everything (not by any means). All it does is give you bit-for-bit clones and images of a complete hard drive or partition, including empty space. But it does what it does in a simple, easy, trouble-free manner.
This is really important. The big issue here is, power and responsibility cannot be separated. If IT has the power to impose restrictions, then impose them. You can try to put a friendly face on it and everything, but ultimately, if it's your prerogative, then it's your prerogative. There will always be some random computer-illiterate egomaniac that feels slighted no matter what you do.
If, however, you do not have the power to enforce rules and make changes, then be very clear with whoever does have that power: If you don't impose the security recommendations made by the IT staff, the IT staff cannot be held responsible for the security holes present on the network. Put it in writing and keep a copy: "These are my recommendations..... If you don't follow these recommendations, here are some possible consequences..... What's your decision?" Try to get the response in writing and keep a copy of that.
I mean, ultimately, if it's not your responsibility and you have no power to do anything about it, then you can only raise the issue with the person who has power. If they're telling you it is your responsibility but that you have no power, then that's your real problem, not security issues.
That being said, if you just want to put a happy face on the process, bundle your access restrictions with upgrades and fixes.
If their computer is running slow from spyware, then while you're removing it and patching their system, lock down their access. Pretend you've installed something that, as a side effect, restricts their access, but it's really a "security fix" that will prevent spyware in the future. It's true enough-- you've fixed the security scheme in such a way as to prevent further access. Pretend it's completely out of your hands-- Microsoft did it. The computer is stupid. People who don't know anything about computers love it when the computer guy says the computer is stupid.
If you can, install a bunch of improvements and software updates that the user will find noticeable-- like I've done it while installing a PDF writer, for example. Hope that this will associate in their minds the idea of these "security improvements" with improved functionality.
Finally, and this is important, get out of their office quickly and answering as few questions as possible. Avoid contact for a little while and hope they just get over being annoyed and grow accustomed to their new access level.
Oh, and keep drilling it into their heads that the reason those sites that require low security in IE are *broken*. I don't care if the sites say IE isn't set up properly, it's because the page is *broken*. The people who made that site are *stupid*. Or they're *hackers*. Just keep saying it.
Ever heard of sarcasm?
By that token, why are fiction books so serious? Did War and Peace really change anyones life? Did someone get a great epiphany reading To Kill a Mockingbird or A Farewell to Arms?
You can tell a great story in any form, books, TV, movies, or in a video game. The truly great ones don't need an award.
Most of the best movies I've seen never won an Oscars, most of the best books I've read never won a pulitzer, most of my favorite TV shows don't win Emmys, and most video games I really like won't get 9 stars at EGM or win any votes. It's irrelevant.
I'll agree with that. In fact, if a book has won a Pulitzer or Nobel prize, or to a lesser extent, if a movie has won an Oscar, my "pretentious bullsh*t" radar goes up. Not necessarily that it IS pretentious bullsh*t, but I'm on the lookout.
Plus, there may have been games that have changed my life. I'd have to think about that one, but I'm not prepared to rule it out without thinking on it. I'll definitely say that there are games that rise above being "merely entertainment" in the way that Jerry Bruckheimer films are "merely entertainment". Anyone actually play all the way through all the GTA3 games? I'm still working on San Andreas, but there's a decent story there, with some interesting twists, good action, and good voice-work. It's not quite art-house, but I would probably put them in roughly the same category as the Spiderman movies, which is to say they have qualities so as to be entertaining to someone looking merely to be entertained by a mindless explosion-fest, but there are plenty of more interesting things going on.
Being popular doesnt mean being great, and take awards shows for what they are - popularity contest. At some point some group, large or small, votes on the winners using whatever arbitrary method they use. There are no metrics, nothing you can measure to say "this game is bigger/faster/better than that one".
You know, I also think it's wrong to compare this to the Oscars. Not because video games are a lesser art medium than film, but because of whose backing the awards. Compare the SpikeTV video game award show to the MTV movie award show, and things make much more sense.
Of course, this is completely wrong in most ways and its not a surprise that any 'real' gamer thinks the award cermony was trash.
Hollywood also thinks that movie-watchers are people who watch movies like "Lord of the Rings", "Spiderman", "Titanic", "Shrek".
Of course, this is wrong, because *real* movie-watchers think these movies are trash.
(I don't know, maybe all those tickets were purchased by *imaginary* movie watchers?)
Except the second amendment was not written to protect your right to defend yourself against criminals. That just wasn't the intention. It was specifically meant to protect you from the government. Whenever I hear someone complaining about the second amendment, it seems they always take it for granted that the ammendment was meant to protect either your right to hunt or your right to protect yourself from criminals. It just completely misses the point.
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms explicitly for the purpose of forming a militia. Read: the right to own military-grade weaponry. Read the bill of rights again-- the entire bill of rights was intended to guarantee the people's right to revolt.
Yes, I have heard all about the point that guns are needed because you keep the government and the army in check. That may be partially true. However, there are plenty of other democracies out there and they seem to function without this explicit need.
Uhh... yeah, sure, that can happen. But how many non-democratic and oppressive governments guarantee their citizens the right to bear arms? Well, how many do you know of?
When you're living in a country with a powerful military and the citizens have no ability to defend themselves with force, the freedom of the citizens in that country is determined by the benevolence of those in charge. In any given case, that might happen. The ruling class may very well be benevolent. Not in Hitler's case, though. (just an example) However, it's very hard to imagine an oppressive government being sustained for long with an armed citizenry (meaning, *everyone* has a right to bear military-grade weapons).
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.