Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 11 years, 7 months ago
    I've never liked Microsoft because I think their product isn't suited to my needs along with it being an excuse ridden bug-fest.

    I like open source because it forces you to get down into the weeds and *know* what is going on with your system.

    That said, I was really pissed when the Clinton Administration went after Microsoft as a monopoly.
    Not only was their claim provably false via the existence of Open Source operating systems, but their claim put me in the uncomfortable position of defending on principle the makers of an excuse ridden bug-fest,

    Urrrrrggggggg!

    It does not surprise me that Microsoft is not standing on the same principle to defend one of their competitors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ HarmonKaslow 11 years, 7 months ago
      I agree about open source ... in fact, I think the public sector should only use open source software as it relates to the public (e.g. filing documents) so that no one is forced (e.g. have the free choice) to use proprietary software
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Eudaimonia 11 years, 7 months ago
        I've always found the Open Source vs Proprietary dilemma sticky.

        I would side with Proprietary (i.e. Microsoft) if their product wasn't so damned lousy.

        However, I can't stand that the Open Source world is rife with leftists.

        I resolve the dilemma for myself like this,
        On the Open Source side, I occasionally contribute cash to the projects I use, and I am resolved to never make any of my own work (should there be any) available without deriving from it at least the value of a bullet point on my resume.

        On the proprietary side, I pay for my licences for Microsoft and software which will not run on Open Source (e.g. Rosetta Stone), but I only run them on an Open Source OS through VMWare.

        As far as standards for public documents go, I think that ship has sailed.
        Microsoft is the default format.
        I would prefer if all government software were Open Source so that the hacker community could examine it and scream loudly at any funny business or security holes, but the government security crowd would claim that Open is itself a security hole, and Microsoft would actively lobby to keep its crony status.

        To make the matter even more sticky, if the government did adopt an open standard it would force private companies to implement it and the majority of people who use proprietary software to upgrade to the new version.

        I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
        I'm just glad that Open Office and LibreOffice can do Open and MS formats.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
    The real problem with Google is their cozy relationship with Big government and their manipulation of search results to support certain political points of view, suppressing others, which I believe falls into the category of fraud.
    I do think a private class action suit over fraud is in order and Under the Lanham Act for false advertising. Regulatory need not be involved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 7 months ago
      It's not fraud if their not guaranteeing equal representation on their search results. If they want to promote one political ideology over another they are allowed to. Their allowed to display anything want with their search engine really. Aside from that I think a lot of these big corporations are buddying up with the government to compete with each other, government pull is just another commodity to be bought. Don't blame Google for trying to run their business in this environment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
        I am talking about manipulating within the rules Google sets forth. The system is mechanical. If, however, Google decides to purposely hide certain information or display certain information outside of the mechanical system set up, that's fraud. They have implicitly promised search results which are unbiased. Google may at any time explicitly state their position. But when they are not using their own algorithms to push a certain point of view (last presidential election, for example), they are not providing the service they promised.
        They actually were a part of the election team of Pres. Obama.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo