OS/2 from IBM. Originally was being co-developed with MS and MS walked away. They recruited a bunch of the VAX developers and ended up with WindowsNT. OS/2 by all accounts (I've not personally used it) is very stable and also ran Windows apps as well. This was back in the Win 3.1 days, and I believe later versions could run some Win9x apps, but I could be wrong there. At that point IBM was already giving up on it. It was used in ATMs for a while, I think.

Volume demand? It doesn't take a lot to press CDs in volume, once you actually get there. Most support for operating systems is by the system vendor, not the OS vendor, unless purchased directly. MS is the same way. Ever call MS support on an OEM version? Kick Rocks.

OS/2 was comperable in price, if not actually cheaper on retail price for comparable software. It's equivelant to the WindowsXP Professional line. It wasn't targeted for the home desktop. (Though WindowsXP Home Edition is a steaming pile.... IMHO.)

It would depend on what you call sacrifices. I run a GNU/Linux distribution at home called Fedora Core. As with all Unix-like/derived, etc. systems, it's more secure out of the box. Email worms/viruses (at the MUA, mail user agent, i.e. Outlook, etc.) would require a completely brain-dead operator to propogate. The user would have to actually save the file, then change the permissions of the file to be executable, then execute the file. Doubtless some morons would follow directions to do that, but I think most wouldn't.

Eah user is segregated from other users, out of the box. With the exception of maybe one or 2 distributions, default users don't have permission to hose the system. On WindowsXP most users are running with Administrative priveleges. BAD. This is done for whatever reasons. Ease of application installation (virus writers LOVE it) I guess. With a Unix-style system, unless you gut the permissions, to install software one needs to chage to the user "root" (or equal) and run the installation routine. This is generally via a package manager, or an install script that copies the file(s) manually, adds any required users (usually for service (like web, email, etc. ftp server) that the system will need. Changing users is incredibly difficult. Requires the use of "su -" (for root, and to take on roots environment, that's the hyphen). That's it.

As for cost, it's available without any costs, LEGALLY. As is much of the software. One can download a distribution and the software included would be worth at LEAST $15K retail for equal proprietary software. For desktops, it's not as much of an issue. OEMs only pay about $30 for an OEM license. However, they are required to follow MS's rules. The OEM can tweak the system how they see fit and pick and choose which apps they want on the system out of the box.

Of course there's an ideal, just that it's pretty much unobtainable (I think you meant that.)

Trust. Hmmm. I guess for the most part I somewhat trust people. When you get burned you tend to not trust those that follow (by that, I mean the next person, not that they are following the lead of the previous person.)

Capitalism probably is the best, in the form we have it. Completely unrestrained capitalism leads to inefficiencies and a few player dominating the market. This results in higher barriers to entry locking out smaller, up and coming players. The market will stagnate, and then destroy itself. Parallels could be drawn to empires. Thay last for a while, but eventually grow too large and die. So, as a society, we've decided that there are rules that you have to play by.

I look at it this way. Over the years there haven't been a lot of terrorist attacks in the US. You had the first WTC attack in '93 I think it was. Then you have OKC in '95. Then it was silent for another 6 years. Of course this doesn't count for any small-scale attacks (like abortion clinic bombings, burning down churches, etc.) To say that we haven't had an attack is rather week. One of the problems is the Administration's hush hush, you don't need to know because if they know we caught someone then they'll know everything way of running things. Here's a hint: if you've apprehended someone they bad guys KNOW. When $TERRORIST all of the sudden goes missing, I'm pretty sure $OTHER_TERRORIST has a good idea we, or an ally, has them in custody.

The problems is, usually once the government acquires priveleges, etc. it doesn't like to give them up. "The War on Terror" as with "The War on Drugs" is a never ending war. It will never be "won." There will always be someone to step up to continue it for whatever their reasons. The street-level dealer is nothing. Dime a dozen with a 2 for 1 special on Saturdays. And every time we've managed to lay hands on a Big Fish, a new one just takes his place.

How many times has legislation been passed where it actually gets rid of laws?

This comes down to the interpretation of the constitution and any subsequent laws. One might say we are headed for a "Constitutional Crisis." The Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment specifically, says a warrant is required for searches (this covers wire taps.) Legislation, in this case the FISA, expands the power of the government regarding wiretaps. It says that you can get permission from a special secret court, even after the fact (up to 72 hours (3 days)).

I've heard this before, but haven't found a source. I can't find anything at a glance on factcheck, or any google hits.



Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

Actually the courts set up under FISA are very, I'm trying to find a word, but "liberal" comes to mind, in that they issue nearly all the requests brought before them.

Actually the President Oath says

The Constitution is what's being protected, and by extension the nation. If the Constitution lives, the nation lives. If it dies, the nation dies.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

BlackandRed,

I don't care in the slightest about operating systems. It was your analogy which, by their nature, always contain flaws in the comparison. I simply wanted to point out that there is a bigger picture in which operating system actually took off than focussing entirely on the systems security protocols. One of the major flaws in the comparison is that hardly anyone was buying an operating system. We buy computers, it is the computer manufacturer that determined the operating system that we got. I put my trust in the American people to make good choices, not computer companies.

The reason you feel the way you do about terrorism is you think the world is the same today as it was 12 years ago. You think the US should be dealing with Terrorism the way Clinton did. You don't feel a full scale, all out war is justified and you don't really think we are in that much danger. Again, I am so glad most of the American people don't look at it that way. I am so glad that GW doesn't look at it that way.

Ok, we have seen what Socialism does. It eventually turns to Communism when the bright and productive people want to leave the society to use their abilities to create a better life. The government has to use guns and fences to keep them in the country to compensate for those who are not productive. THe opposite of Freedom.

You try to compare capitalism to emperialism? Emperialism is irrelevant and a rabbit trail. First, no one said anything about unrestrained capitalism. You came up with that for whatever reason. We are talking about our economic basis and it is far from unrestrained. Second, there is no record that I am aware of a country that employs capitalism as its economic basis ever responsible for limiting freedom for economic reasons.

 

If you don't care, don't pose the question. Some people buy computers much differently. They don't just run down to the local Best Buy and grab off the shelf. They select the indidual components best suited for the tast. And one of those components is the OS. And sometimes it's a huge piece of the overall puzzle for various reasons. Could be security. Could be application support. Customizations & Control.

That is NOT Communism. If the government is forcibly keeping people in the country that is Totalitarianism. I've noticed that most people, especially conservative equate the two. One is an economic model (Communism) the other is a form of government (Totalistarianism).

Parrallels can be drawn between many things. And was in response to a paragraph you posted. Maybe it went a little off track, but I still stand by it. It's pretty much accepted that large corporations become accustomed to things. They are used to being the "Go to Guy." They get business because of who they are. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM," is a common phrase, well was, in the computer industry. Then IBM got complacent and declined. Luckily they turned things around. They've pretty much stopped selling desktops and focus back servers and mainframes. Many people see the same things coming out of Redmond, WA as they did Armonk, NY.

I'm not quite sure what that last sentance is for, or where you're trying to go with that.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

OMG I can't believe you guys are still at this, I don't have the energy to keep up with this on a daily basis anymore. BTW the FISA court is not very liberal with it issuance of taps, it is not a rubber stamp and information derived from a FISA can not be used in criminal charges. Requests for such taps do not go through the same process as with a criminal one, criminal are much easier. A request is reviewed and returned by the requesting agencies Division Council in a lot of cases and if it makes it through the agency DOJ often returns them. A request has to go through a lot of hoops before being brought to the FISA court, because as with any government agency no one wants to take the chance of a judge banging them for it. It would be interesting to know the number of requests that are shot down at the agency level or DOJ in comparison to the number taken before the FISA court, not that anyone will ever put those numbers out if they even keep track.

Who among you even knew a FISA court existed 5 years ago? Just a thought.

 

Since you insist on spreading out your posts by responding to me one paragraph at a time, I am not sure where we intend to go with this. You have taken my posts and fragmented them and responded with independent rebuttals. Take the places where you quoted me out of your posts and put your independent rebuttals together as a post. They are inconsistent and make no sense. Your comments can't make your case without my words being present in your post. Instead of using my words as targets to shoot holes in my ideas, why don't you use your words and promote your ideas.

What do you want to see happen in regard to the things we have been discussing that would improve our society?

 

Its a myth that clinton did illegal wiretapping...see here Text

DSNUT, so if i understand you correctly, you have no problem if hillery was the pres, and spied on whoever she wanted, and lied about it, and was unchecked by any republicans?

So you think that fiengold is a lier...just like bush and cheney? all politicians are liers, or only the dems?

 

First, Clinton didn't do illegal wire tapping and neither is Bush. The myth is that it is illegal.

Second, I would have no problem with Hillery doing what Bush is doing because it isn't illegal.

Third, I think feingold is coming to the wrong conclusion based on a false premis.

I don't think all politicians are liars. I think most are honest, hard working people that are knee deep in impossible situations. They wake up in the morning between a rock and a hard place and they do it for very little money compared to the responsibility they have.

 

"Third, I think feingold is coming to the wrong conclusion based on a false premis."

Well, use your fancy little fact checker, and point out specificly whats not true or misleading...and ill rebut it with the facts.

 

I stated my position in my response to the speech. Rebut that.