OSNews

Your reply could be construed as the typical reaction of conformist sheep.

I agree, how can someone saying "MS" be construed as a troll ?

you're so right.

MS has 7 business devisions before reorganizing their business groups last couple months.

5 out of 7 are loosing money (MSN, XBOX, ..etc) and only two are making money, windows and office.

how did the two business become successful? by racketeering and monopoly.

In MS world, Al-Capone is a great business man.

Anybody who knows if Bill is paying his taxes?

It's unfortunate scores have a limit of 5, if there was ever a post that deserved one of my +1 votes it's this one.

Agreed and +1

Yes. LSD helped build Linux- now MSCrack 2006 will tear it down.

"The world's richest man talks about developing new drugs to combat AIDS, open-source software

This is confusing : is Gates developing new drugs to combat open-source software ?!"

I think what they mean is the drugs they are developing to combat AIDS are going to brainwash people into using MS software as a side-effect.

Thom Thom Thom...

What Bill does is okay. But compared with his resources his doing less than most other people.

Take Joe Average's income and compare with Bill's income
and compare then what they give.

Joe Average gives more than Bill.

If Bill Gates did this anonymously or spent a lot more, I might consider it something good. But at the moment I consider it nothing but a PR-stunt.

What Bill does is okay. But compared with his resources his doing less than most other people.

Goes to show how little people know about Bill Gates.

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1160665.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

I know these... have read them... proves nothing... on to next issue...

Goes to show how little people know about Bill Gates.

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1160665.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html
--------------------
Really? Okay, I checked the latest link...let's see:
- 1BN over 20 years (50M/year) for students...guess which software they'll be almost forced to use? Look up for word INVESTMENT. Read the cigarette comment some user posted above..same thing.

- 750M to Unicef (they take like 30% or more), pharmaceutical companies (they don't give a damn, they just want to patent as much as they can and sell drugs by highest prices as possible), World Bank (errr..poor and sick gain what here?)

- 350M to teachers, schools...yeah, IN SOFTWARE. Again, investment.

- 200M to libraries...read above

Of course it does some good, true, but you need to see behind all this, see the motive, it's all one big investment and PR. Don't be naive man.

1BN over 20 years (50M/year) for students...guess which software they'll be almost forced to use? Look up for word INVESTMENT. Read the cigarette comment some user posted above..same thing.

I agree with this, though I have to add that you can hardly expect the man to undermine his own company

750M to Unicef (they take like 30% or more), pharmaceutical companies (they don't give a damn, they just want to patent as much as they can and sell drugs by highest prices as possible), World Bank (errr..poor and sick gain what here?)

The world bank approved $30m for emergency food handouts in Southern Africa (the region, not the country) which is entering famine. They gave billions to poor countries around the world, particularly Africa, and they've agreed to waive the debt this year.

[Note, the World Bank used the concept of long-term loans to try to give them some leverage over the despots that run a lot of the poorest countries and stop them squandering the money. It was not profiteering, and the debt-cancellation is an acceptance that this policy failed]

Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation is taking an active interest in what Big Pharma is doing with the money they get: by and large, they're paying the pharmaceuticals to develop what would otherwise be unprofitable products, such as vaccines. The pharmaceuticals can't just squander the money. In this regard they're making a real break-through, as most other charities couldn't guarantee the long-term spending needed for such a deal.

Read these for more:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3598720
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2084799

350M to teachers, schools...yeah, IN SOFTWARE. Again, investment.

Not entirely, there's a lot being spent on other forms of education in Africa in particular. In any event, skills learnt on Windows can be easily transferred to other operating systems, and IT, being a light industry, is an excellent market that poor countries (like that infamous India) can exploit to their own people's advantage.

I whole-heartedly agree with the initial posts that Microsoft is a brutal company with a history of acting illegally, and that Bill Gates was an active supporter of this. The company has definitely held back the development of computer systems (think how many people muddled along with network drives when NFS offered a far nicer way of working with networks). However the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing excellent work throughout the world, and I think they could actually make some breakthroughs.

The fact that Mr. Gates is actively overseeing this himself, instead of foisting it to some anonymous foundation run by fund managers, would suggest that, to him at least, there's more to this than just PR.

Ultimately, people are complex: no-one can be bad all the time, and this is one of those times when Mr. Gates is doing some good.

One of best replies I've read and interesting, I didn't know that about world bank. Would give you a +1 if I could

"Not entirely, there's a lot being spent on other forms of education in Africa in particular. In any event, skills learnt on Windows can be easily transferred to other operating systems, and IT, being a light industry, is an excellent market that poor countries (like that infamous India) can exploit to their own people's advantage. "

No. Skills learnt on Windows CANT be easily transferred to other operating systems. If that was the case then the word 'learning curve' would have been an oxymoron!

infamous India? poor country ?

When did a country turn infamous by using IT? or by exploiting a market for the advantage of the people of the country? Aren't all sane countries supposed to be working for the advantage of the people of the country?

poor country? On what basis? India and China might be the richest countries on earth w.r.t. resources right now.

and if you meant India is poor because a part of the population is poor [wrt money] then poor people wrt money exist in each and every country!

The reason why a part of India's population is poor because it has been invaded and its riches exploited since ages the last being british and the latest being Microsoft Windows and Office !

Except that Bill doesn't have a huge salary at Microsoft, all of his money is in stocks. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs happens to be one of the top paid CEOs in the US... what exactly is he doing?

Also, donating a billion here and a billion there is a LOT of money.

He also plans to, when he dies, give each of his kids $10million, and the rest goes to the foundation.

Yes, Bill is worth abot $50B, but that is not cash.

Whether or not in cash doesn't matter.

What Jobs is doing is unknown. But it doesn't mean he isn't doing something. But of course it could be that he does nothing - but we don't know.

In percentage I've already given more this year than Gates, but of course he has more to give from - or rather his institution does. Not a bad step, but not something which means I look at him different.

A drop in the Good sea doesn't make the rest of his bad behaviour better.

Jobs takes 1 dollar a year in salary...well known fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

That was for something like 5 years or so.

After that he was over the million mark.

From the Wiki:

"His current salary at Apple officially remains $1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board..."

So yeah, he definitely gets quite a bit other than salary...but his salary is still 1$ a year.

Bill Gates probably pays more in taxes each year than most of us will make in salary in a lifetime :-). Something to think about...

You obviously know very little about US Federal tax laws...

That would be news to me considering I majored in finance. The amount he pays on his stockholdings (MS and otherwise) is most definitely a staggering amount, and is most definitely more than most (all) people will make in a lifetime.

You're wrong. Gates has spent most of *his* money on charity. Seriously, I don't think you'll find a more charitable rich man than Bill Gates.
You realize that almost all of his wealth is wrapped up in Microsoft? They give dividends when Gates runs out of spending money...

Sorry, with all the respect to osnews staff, but please put down your MS fanboy Tshirt, read some more and start thinking with your own head. Microsoft, while they've given a lot to computer world, are lately causing lots of damage to it (worms and viruses anyone?), slowing down the development with their idiotic patents and lawsuits and pulling cash from naive people by selling them *shiny new products* when in fact are the same old crappy software with few more bells and whistles. And then they want customers to actually PAY for some "antivirus/spyware" crap, to fix the bugs their incompetent coders left behind?

And please don't mention donations. While every help is good and appreciated, what he gives is a change, you gotta look from broader perspective. If you read some more you'd know, all cash he donates goes to his and his wife's fund...can you spell "TAX DEDUCTION"?

Oh yes, the tens of billions of dollars he's donated has saved him tons in taxes!

So If I donate $1000 and save $50 in taxes, I only did it for taxes? The fact that I'm still out $950 means nothing?

What country is that tax code from? Only 5% of charitable donations allowed? Time to move dude.

It was an example, and an example only.

But if you care, I donated $1000 recently to the Katrina relief, and doing so will not change my tax bracket for this year.

get a better accountant then fella.

Don't blame it all on the people writing code, that's really unfair. Most of the security and stability of professionally developed software comes from the design.

For example I remember reading that with OCaml it would be possible to create an array type that uses software checking to make sure it doesn't overflow, this could be implemented with C and C++ or any other language MS needs no doubt so why don't they design their code to use such a measure, it would eliminate buffer overflows.

Developers do have some effect on the quality of a product, but the majority of MS product problems I heard about sound like design flaws.

Being a developer myself, I understand that every code can contain bugs, of course, nothing wrong with that. BUT...when you cover 95% of world market, they MUST and SHOULD be responsible, with all the money they milk from customers, what do they have, like 5 coders working on Windows code?! If they think they are so good, they should be an example to coders, but nowadays some small startups make better, faster, more (and true) innovative and more capable programs than they do. But maybe I'm the only one seeing things this way

"So many people bash him without ever thinking about how much he has done to make this world a better place. If only every rich man in this world donated the same percentage of their wealth as he has."

If I donated $500 I'd be donating a greater percent of my net worth than he does.

If I donated $500 I'd be donating a greater percent of my net worth than he does.

Whereas his donation would make a significantly bigger impact on the charities cause.

Your point?

excellent, I can keep my 500 bucks then

But that's only because he has more money in the first place...

It depends if you value praiseworthiness in relation to the net effect the donation has, or to the sacrifice made by the donator.

The fact is that people should not make as much money as Bill Gates does in the first place. No one needs that much money.

That is irrelevant to the fact that he is still the CEO of an abusive monopoly. Giving to charity doesn't exonerate him from the destructive actions of his company...

Thom, don't be naive.

Donating, or giving some peanuts while letting millions to die ? here's a nice reading for you:

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=235&row=1

Actually open source right now is presenting an option for the poor while Microsoft is charging prices outside of the US that would make your head spin. Microsoft has done nothing but release a rediculous, crippled and useless version Windows for poor people. Who would buy something with a locked in screen resolution that's too low for 90% of current apps to be useful, or that can only have three running apps at a time!

The locked up, non-standards-compliant nature of MS apps was done on purpose to force people to use MS products in order to be compatible with everyone else who willingly submits themselves to the Microsoft monopoly. Several times some piece of software came out that was far more advanced than what Microsoft had, and knowing full well that they couldn't beat it they decided to use their monopoly to crush that software, illegally I might add. Remember BeOS, that was far ahead of where Windows 95 and 98 were at the time.

Bill Gates might be putting some of his money towards a good cause, but it's a PR stunt and what's worse is that the money was acquired through immoral and illegal practices. If I went and robbed your house, then put a portion of what I made from the heist into charity would that make everything ok? I don't think so, so then how does the very same make up for what Gates and Microsoft has done.

You are a bunch of sarcastic, cynical haters!!!!

emmmm, maybe, but so what ?

Don't hate on Bill Gates. He is at least doing some good in the world...or trying to. How quick you bigots are to discredit any good thing if it doesn't align itself with your "Computing Agenda". Who really gives a flying f--k about open source. Open source will not save the world and end all poverty and disease

People in 3rd world countries have better things to spend cash on, like food, heating, medicine than pay license fees to Mr Gates and that psychotic retard Balmer.

Don't give the typical US trailer trash reply that people in the 3rd world don't need computers, you will only show your ignorance. 3rd world programmers wrote the majority of code in XP.

Last year India announced they were dropping Microsoft products in favour of Linux, next week Gates was in Mumbai donating $400m to fight AIDS in India, co-incidence or what ?

Gates' "donations" are very transparently political in their motivations: HIV/AIDS in Africa, computers in inner city US schools, college scholarships to inner city youths....beginning to see a pattern? He is a deeply cynical and selfish man. These "gifts" are not so much charity as payoffs to appease potential political enemies and give the appearance that he cares about black Americans and Africans which is a "cool" thing.

His wealth is in the range of many billions, a yearly income in the hundreds of millions, and if I recall correctly he donated a measly one million dollars about a year ago to promote CS research. He is far more concerned about his image than truly giving something worthwhile back to the world. He heads a corporation whose product is used by millions of people in the world and instead of doing something charitable in the one area in which he has some understanding he donates (very ostentatiously) to endeavors which have nothing but the ability to gain political favor. His behavior is shallow and despicable.

This is a truely great point. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives a tremendous ammount of money to a variety of charities around the world. I need to respect the guy for that.

AW

The fact that he is generous with his money is irrelevant with is views on open-source, and the tactics its company takes to combat the latter.

One can praise Bill Gates for his philanthropy and decry him for his monopolistic views at the same time.

If only every rich man in this world donated the same percentage of their wealth as he has.

Well, overall it would simply be better if wealth was better redistributed.

One can praise Bill Gates for his philanthropy and decry him for his monopolistic views at the same time.

You would think so. Some people seem to think that since he's harsh on open-source, that any good he does shouldn't be praised. I don't subscribe to that line of bullshit, but some people do.

Which goes to show that one can be evil and still do good. Likewise, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. :-)

"Good" and "Evil" are very relative concepts. I much prefer "destructive", "constructive" and "remedial." To me, Microsoft's business tactics (which are endorsed by Bill Gates) are destructive, which his philanthropy is sometimes constructive, sometimes remedial (i.e. it doesn't solve the root of the problem, but only the symptoms).

That said, I don't think that Bill Gates deserves praise for his philanthropy: one shouldn't give to charity in order to be praised, but rather for the good that it does. It should be a selfless act. Also, one should consider the amount of money Gates has vs. what he gives vs. what he needs.

Someone making 40,000$ dollars a year giving out 1000$ is a lot more praiseworthy than Bill Gates giving a 100 million dollars, because his living expenses are much smaller (proportionately) than the average Joe's.

In other words, while it's nice that Bill Gates gives money to charity, it doesn't shield him from criticism in any way.

But it's been already stated in this thread many times that he's given close to $30billion. Also that he is given almost all of his money when he dies (minus what, $20million?) to charity.

Maybe we don't believe Robin Hood was a good story?

Steal from the rich, give to the poor; you're still stealing .

Do you have any idea how much of a tax write off everything he donates is. He will lose money if he doesn't donate, all the rich people do.

That being said, I like most of the charities the Gates Foundation supports.

How much do you think he gets in tax breaks he gets from the $30billion he's donated/donating do you think?

I assure you it's NOT more than $30billion, and much much less.

Let's even say he get's $20billion in tax breaks from it (no way in hell it's anywhere near that). He's still out $10billion. So how exactly does that help him in the end?

Lots of drug companies. Kind of contradicts the idea of providing cheap drugs to poor countries.

It would be better if he donated to charity's rather than funding research for the big rich drug companies. Companies who I am sure pay a lot of money for software licenses every year. And donating computers to schools is for obvious reasons.

The people that I know as generous will never be rich in the first place. They don't accumulate wealth, they share it all the way along.

If Gates was so "cool" he would have stopped working for Microsoft already (because he has enough money) and gone off to Africa to help out building Villages and Schools with his hands. Many of my friends have done that and I consider them to be far more generous than some billionaire giving a couple of % to some drug research.

remember in a previous interview, bill gates said that he tried firefox and he didn't find it innovative.

I guess, Mr. Gates doesn't know what innovation is; no wonder MS products lack innovation.

Firefox isn't innovative... at all.

It takes features from Opera. There is NOTHING in Firefox that was developed newly for Firefox. You might even say that there is nothing in Mozilla in general that wasn't taken from elsewhere.

Oh yeah, but I guess it's ok to call open source stuff innovative when they copy other features.

There is NOTHING in Firefox that was developed newly for Firefox. You might even say that there is nothing in Mozilla in general that wasn't taken from elsewhere.

Opera has XUL?

XUL was not developed for Firefox.

XUL was developed for Mozilla, which became Firefox in its browser only guise.

According to:

http://xulplanet.com/tutorials/whyxul.html

"XUL was designed for creating the user interface of the Mozilla application including the web browser, mail client and page editor"

XUL is glorified GLADE.

Defining an interface in XML is not "innovative". The only "innovative" thing in Firefox is that they have (wrongly) pushed basic functionality out to 3rd party plugins.

XUL is glorified GLADE.

Which web browser uses GLADE?

How is XUL innovative?

you're so wrong. I've been using opera for over a year when I discovered firefox.

open source products have been, and always be the leading edge of innovation. Because open source developers think freely; they design what they need; Here when the innovation comes into life.

commercial products implemented by developers who don't know much about the needs of the products; they just follow the blue prints (specs) given to them.

As it was said, the need is the mother of the invention. And definetly, open source is the shortest path from when the need arises to the time when the invention becomes a reality.

Ok, so what exactly is innovative in Firefox?

Nothing at all. It's just a browser that supports other standards. Innovation = 0.0

The icon is cool tho

Extensions? Nah, they already exist in many forms.
Open Source? Nah, it already existed before.
Install method? It sucks, no update till next version.. very innovative

All in all people mixes Innovative with Useful/Free/OS/portable/etc.

Firefox is Nice because it's a "cheap" way to prevent Joe Users from using Internet Explorer, which could lead to spyware/adware infections. Joe User won't notice the difference and he'll be a little bit safer.
Firefox is Nice for 'geeks' because they can install some extensions, thus they have all the coolness they want, and geeky features. Some not-so-geek users +may+ find a few extensions and use 'em and say that they are cool. But that are not joe users. If a user can discover by himself what an extension is, how to get it and install it, he's either no longer a "joe user" or he's very intelligent and creative. He likes to touch things; play with the computer. Period.

Your granma won't find an extension...

So Firefox (which has got nothing to do with Bill Gates) is not innovative.

Perhaps the only innovation it has, is the AD payed to the NY Times. That was innovation in some way; an open source app raising funds to publish an 'expensive' Ad. After that, it's just fairly well implemented browser/engine/etc.

My 0.02¢

Your granma won't find an extension...
One has to be careful for using 'grandma' in their argument. 'grandma' will make a fool of you once she figured out how a browser works. I got my own lesson when I saw a 72 years old woman installing Firefox, learning about functionality and add extensions by herself.

Not true.

It would be more correct to say that Opera and Firefox takes from eachother.

FireFox in comparison with Mozilla Suite may not be innovative. But then, FireFox is the standalone Mozilla browser, so it's really a comparison between A and A. And then A isn't innovative.

Both Opera and FireFox are innovative

You just happen to like none of them, because you like Windows so much.

You only agree with me when I have good things to say about windows and bad things about GNU/Linux. But when it's reverse you immediately attack me and understate the flaws in Windows.

Have seen that quite a few times from you and sappyvcv.

I actually like FF 1.5

Also, there is nothing innovative in Mozilla either, save for XUL

Oh yeah, and I use FF 1.5, not IE

"Firefox isn't innovative... at all.

It takes features from Opera. There is NOTHING in Firefox that was developed newly for Firefox. You might even say that there is nothing in Mozilla in general that wasn't taken from elsewhere.

Oh yeah, but I guess it's ok to call open source stuff innovative when they copy other features."

But people downloaded firefox because it was just a good browser, and it just as powerful as Opea considering it's OSS. Innvotive in bringing OSS to Windows like no other application ever, so care to explain why it's so popular, if it's a rip off of opera?

Also other than opera what browser even come close to features with firefox?, RSS, search engine selection, theming engine, tabbed browsing, OSS, Free, cross platform. MSIE didn't even come close and still dont.

Maxthon, and just about any other IE varient.
Safari.

Maxthon, and just about any other IE varient.
They are not standalone because they require IE to be functional. They are addon not a browser in a real sense of meaning.

Safari.
Safari is only available for Mac OS and OSX only. It is based on Konqueror IIRC which is only available for Unix based system.

Firefox is not a stand-alone browser, it requires Gecko to run.

At least, by your logic.

Not true. You talk about rendering engine.
My point still stand that Maxthon is just an addon because you need to install Internet Explorer(which uses a modified Mosaic engine). Try to install Maxthon without IE and let know if you succeed.

Now you talk about rendering engine in this case. I could say Internet Explorer uses modified Mosaic engine as well. I could say Opera use a different rendering engine. Should Maxthon were a real browser, it wouldn't require to install Internet Explorer in the first place.

I would think that looking at all of the extentions to SeaMonkey and Firefox, that it is truely overcomes what it has borrowed from other browsers like Opera.

The comparisons on Firefox and Opera on the grounds of innovation depends on 'your' definition of innovation when talking about browsers. Is it the new features, new UI for the same old tasks? AFter all someone like me would use to browse through the zillions of websites. period.

I do use both Fx and Opera frequently. Opera lacks some features that Fx supports (like drag'n drop of images/files into folders) and Fx has not still decided on whether to provide a RSS reader integrated or not. And both have to be careful as IE7 is catching up on features and it will support at least XP users.

On the OSS talk, as a person who do contribute work towards OSS development, I stand for better software. IT IS giving users the best application for his needs. In that sense OSS has its own merits and demerits. As more people interact there are more ideas. The bugs are easily discovered. Easily fixed. And they are better softwares (structurally as more people look at the code).

But they lack the motive/thrust of a Corporation; not about money, but the marketing techniques; personeel to drive the software;sell (? - make more people use it;) it; Go on doing PR stuff on how this would be better and the like. again, some lack of providing the looks, the user -interface IS IMPORTANT forthe normal user. He cares about it.

And at last....Oh, I am off topic (the thread was about Bill Gates' donation) ;-)

Ack, CPUGuy beat me to the punch! There is absolutely nothing innovative about Firefox...just how "innovative" can a web browser be? They render markup/scripts, that's it. IMO, most of the browsers out there are equally as bad as one another, though I'm a FF guy myself (though IE7 is looking pretty sweet as of late).

giving cigarette for free to get chlidren addict as soon as possible.

Oooh, I liked that comment

It hits right on spot

> giving cigarette for free to get chlidren addict as soon as possible

True that!

My school only uses MS products, it makes me very miserable since I had to get MS Office which costed far more than OO.o, and I would have had to get VS.net 2003 if the school board hadn't licensed it for the students. I'm also tied to Windows until I graduate >:( .

That's a lot of money made by MS and all they had to do was spend a few dollars donating software to a school.

take this up with the board of governors of the school. lead by example.

all schools everywhere should be shown the benefits of getting out of the grips of microsoft.
kids today "learn computers" by being taught which buttons to click in microsoft office, so by the time they leave school, they are like trained monkeys.
kids are our future and it is up to us to provide the best solutions for them.
schools need to learn that a "donation" of microsoft software is promoting microsofts agenda of keeping users for its platform, someone here made an analogy with a company giving cigarettes to children. I have been an anti-smoker since I quit last year after 24 years of being a smoker. I will never smoke again, but I know how easily it was to get addicted in the first place. So if people in their 30's like me are quitting, and the older ones are dying off, then the tobacco companies need to recruit the young to keep up their userbase. Microsoft have the smae policy.

I am not on any school boards, or a member of any government, but I am going to start bombarding them with facts, and I urge you all to do the same...

Stop taking and teaching Microsoft software, keep the money that you would be spending on licenses and use that for gym equipment, better computers, learning aid, trips out for the kids etc.

I made this exact same comment to an ex TAFE teacher at Sydney's Ultimo TAFE campus (she was head of the IT faculty too I might add). She actually agreed with me, that it was unhealthy to solely teach using Microsoft products, and proclaim that as Information Technology. However - she had no say in it. The deals were done between the Board of Education and Microsoft, and NSW TAFE got a very nice buying price on a lot of Microsoft Licenses. A real Information Technology course would cover both OSS and proprietary softwares, equally.

I had a hardware teacher who was anti Linux/OSS and pro Microsoft. He called DOS great, and the Unix command line a piece of shit. That said, I showed him a few DOS commands that he didn't know about ;-) He tried whitewashing the other students with his anti Linux comments, and bashing IBM and Novell as cheaters who stole from SCO (yes, this teacher was preaching this shit in class!!!). Every single time I calmly stood up and made an ass out of him with cool and factual replies. I think the class looked at me very differently :-) After a few times, I had students asking me for help (they were all green Cert II students who still really had f--k all idea about computing, and in reality weren't at Cert III level).

After all of this, I quit the course mid term and will not complete it, based on a moral decision. I will not support an educational system that solely focusses on Microsoft products. Period.

Dave

That's interesting. Here at University of Sydney, namely the engineering dept, we only got Windows PCs for the students...And yet, when it comes to trimming expenditures, a suggestion of "alternative software" is responded with much excuses.

I'm very aware that the University has an agreement with Microsoft, but when the student council's help guides suggest we should buy a word processor (MS WORD specifically mentioned), something just isn't right.

Time to change that.

Yeah, and the thing is, Microsoft gets away with it, because the government knows it's getting a bargain. I'm a firm believer in that Open Source software must be legislated for ANY government department. Period. It will ensure open standards, and that no proprietary, non open standard application ever makes it way into the public. I don't give a rats ass about Microsoft's business. None whatsoever. They have a huge market with corporate businesses who have no accountability to the public. Government departments are elected by the people, for the people, and they are entirely accountable to the public. And as far as I'm concerned, that means that every single government department MUST only use formats that are open and non proprietary. If Centrelink sends me a document in MS Word format, and I can't open it because I don't use Microsoft Windows, why should I be disadvantaged? What we are seeing here is a lack of openness from our government bodies, when they use proprietary and non open products. Massachusetts got it right.

Dave

"Here's hoping that MS will win for the moral victory this time, even if it is for their own gains."

Um, isn't it going to come from the disc right into an MS DRM format? I'm asking, not saying by the way as I haven't looked into it yet, but I would be suprised if MS actually are pushing for anything for and of the people.

I know, that's what I assume, they are doing it for their gain. However, if it is able to come off in their DRM, 1) at least one is able to store it on one's hard drive, and 2) that means it is more likely to be cracked or be allowed to come off either DRM free or in a different DRM too, again IMHO. Still, at least some form of choice is there, rather than being able to do nothing but watch the DVD from an approved divice on an approved TV without any form of TiVo etc. At least, I hope there is more choice than that.

Yep. He's gave away close to $30billion of his own money to charity for "good PR". Makes a lot of sense.

"It's telling how no one here is praising MS and Bill Gates for helping the war on HIV/AIDS..."

So many people bash him without ever thinking about how much he has done to make this world a better place. If only every rich man in this world donated the same percentage of their wealth as he has."

It's not only the act that counts, it is the motives too. And for the motives, I - and lots of others - don't trust him one bit.

Also, I look in admirement at how he turned the IT world so quickly into a worse place..."
---

No it's the act that counts, NOT the motives. If you're sick and dying you dont care about motives you care about help... Not some dumb ass high school kids in america who dont know anything about poverty going on about how evil MS ruined the poor IT world.

Oh yes the poor IT world, Microsoft has done nothing to help that industry has it, I'm really sure so many giants in the IT world would of been just as wealthy with Linux and Apple dominating it... I mean NOBODY uses windows out of choice do they

You are confusing shareware and open source, not the same at all.

shareware was from the late eighties, however, in the fifties and sixties and most of the seventies, all software used to be open sourced.
Bill Gates used open sourced software at the start too, when he was taking and giving code in his computer club.

That's because they're a rich client software company being threatened by non-rich client web software.

Now now... don't come here and give me nightmares...

I agree with you

And the open source voice is being heard

And don't worry about the hippie-thing.

In Europe you'll finder supporters of open source in all political spectres.

I hope you can live with my abuse of the Enter key

I will salute it.

Does that make them proprietary rednecks?

You are, of course, correct. I've said this for a very long time.

Best wishes,

Dave

Why separate his actions as an ordinary man from his actions as CEO of Microsoft?

Microsoft has done a world of harm under Gates and still the man fishes for PR as if he had done nothing wrong. Why should Gates get away with certain actions on the grounds that he was acting as the CEO of a company when they were done, it doesn't reflect any less on him.

"you use what ever is best, linux on webservers and DB servers, maybe some app servers. some windows IIS app servers. Windows AD domain with exchange, Linxu dev workstations windows XP pro workstations for users etc "

The assumption that Linux is only for servers and developer workstations is a very inaccurate stereotype. Have you tried the latest SUSE? I didn't keep it because SUSE removed mp3 support directly out of the KDEmultimedia libraries and then tried to make up for it by including Real(awful)Player and making it the back-end for amaroK. Aside from that SUSE Linux 10.0 is brilliant and far better polished than Windows. SUSE Linux 10.0 might not have as many commercial software packages for it, but it is just as easy to use as Windows and runs smoother. There are lots of other distributions that are good for desktop use too, and unless you are a hardcore gamer or have special needs you can easily use those instead of Windows.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Linux is far ahead of Windows, both have strenghts and weaknesses, but right now it could be fairly said that one is better than the other and vice versa depending on the user. SUSE 10.0 doesn't need a rocket scientist to use it, in fact anyone who can't use SUSE would also be unable to use Windows were it not for the help of friends, peers and family who are familiar with the OS already.

Right now I consider the playing field fairly equal, SUSE's YaST has just as much power as the Windows control panel and it's organized far better. If SUSE hadn't crippled the KDEmultimedia libraries then I would have been Windows free by now, and if Novell finally caught a hint and relesed a multimedia pack at the cost of licensing then Windows would be little more than an afterthought for me.

SUSE Linux right now would be brilliant on any office machine, and should Novell one day include good multimedia support or provide said multimedia support on an extra CD then SUSE Linux would be excellent on just about any machine.

It goes without saying that some people will still preffer Windows over Linux, but with things going the way they are the only thing keeping Linux down is the lack of multimedia support, advertising and a presence on store shelves.

yes, I have used SuSe, i have been using Linux on servers and desktops for years.(i support both)

I work in a large enterprise and heavy duty production enviroments use what they use. i can not replace a few thousand desktops with suse no matter
how much someone may say "its better for the desktop"

with many internal windows apps and many which are based on windows and can not be replaced with linux versions.

and no, wine is not production level software.

and what about migration costs? how about 1000s of users who have used this windows enviroment for years
without any problems?

for them everything just works, becuase we do not have some mickey mouse high school level IT shop. everything is done correctly.

it is not a matter of "have you tryed xyz distro" thats something linux zelots who dont admin and who are not in a large production shops have no clue about. and insist on jamming linux where it may not fit. thats a matter of use the best tool, things you have to consider are:

support (who is going to support it, how is it going to be supported? infrastucture support?)

just jamming suse with nis, or openldap is a very poor
replacement for windows 2000 AD and exchange with GPOs and a VBS logon script framework.


-Nex6

Wow that's a flame.

"I work in a large enterprise and heavy duty production enviroments use what they use. i can not replace a few thousand desktops with suse no matter
how much someone may say "its better for the desktop"

with many internal windows apps and many which are based on windows and can not be replaced with linux versions.

and no, wine is not production level software."

Using the number of computers is a poor excuse, when upgrade time rolls around then you could easily make the switch. You might even find the automated installation tools available in SUSE to be more convenient.

As for the internal Windows apps that isn't Linux's responsability, you don't expect Windows to run Linux apps, so don't expect Linux to run Windows apps. If you have a say in the matter make sure the apps you get are portable across different processors and operating systems whenever possible, failing to do so is a very poor long-term decision and advertises inexperience.

"and what about migration costs? how about 1000s of users who have used this windows enviroment for years
without any problems? "

Leave it for the time being, then when upgrade time rolls around you can switch to Linux if you want. You are being overly defensive, this attitude wasn't warranted; you assume that I was referring to your setting yet I wasn't, I was refering to any setting and for the most part home and workstation use. Just because you aren't set up to run Linux where you work doesn't mean it's any less of a good and suitable OS than Windows, it just means you can't (or won't) use it.

"for them everything just works, becuase we do not have some mickey mouse high school level IT shop. everything is done correctly."

Wow, that's condescending of you. You have no idea who I am yet you assume that what I know is limited to a "mickey mouse high school" level. Your comments so far haven't led me to believe your an IT expert, that kind of insult would actually put you at a very young age imo.

"it is not a matter of "have you tryed xyz distro" thats something linux zelots who dont admin and who are not in a large production shops have no clue about. and insist on jamming linux where it may not fit. thats a matter of use the best tool, things you have to consider are:"

So I'm a Linux Zealot because I'm open minded about the OS and speak my mind? I'll know I'm a zealot when I talk like you.

In case you've been living in a cave for the last few years IBM, Novell and several companies larger than anywhere you've worked use Linux for more than just servers and development workstations. I along with millions of others have been using it as a desktop OS for years. I know Linux, and I know what it's capable of. You obviously would rather slander it.

"support (who is going to support it, how is it going to be supported? infrastucture support?) "

That sounds like one of Microsoft's lines, oh wait, it is!
You pay for a boxed set or a site license and you get support, that's what the payment is for. Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Xandros, etc... offer excellent support packages with their products and licenses, far better than those outsourced support people I've had to deal with from MS who can't even speek (or write) good english. Saying it's unsupported is rediculous, or maybe you're just saying that you don't have the training required to click a few buttons in YaST.

"just jamming suse with nis, or openldap is a very poor
replacement for windows 2000 AD and exchange with GPOs and a VBS logon script framework. "

I've seen Linux handle this stuff very well, Windows keeps it's networking protocol as closed as possible so if that isn't perfectly supported it's not the fault of Linux. As far as networking goes I've found SUSE Linux far less miserable than Windows, and as far as setting up several machines goes Linux gets exponentially less painful than Windows with each system.

You're original post showed an air of impartiality but now you've revealed yourself as yet another anti-Linux crusader. You don't care whether Linux is good or not, you're just looking for karma by bashing Linux.

Really, when you start a thread by calling people trolls or zealots it's obvious you're one of them.

Quote: "with many internal windows apps and many which are based on windows and can not be replaced with linux versions."

Yes, and this is because they're all linked to closed and proprietary applications and formats. There's another name for it:

Vendor lock in

Quote: "and no, wine is not production level software."

No, it's not, I haven't heard anyone say it was.

Quote: "for them everything just works, becuase we do not have some mickey mouse high school level IT shop. everything is done correctly."

No - because the vast majority of them are bordering on computer illiterate. They are no better than trained monkeys - press this button, type this, click this, press enter and it all works. As soon as it stops working, that's when their true computer abilities show. Or should I say, don't show. Since I've worked on a few internal helpdesks for major companies, providing technical assistance to staff, I feel that I can confidently say what I'm saying.

Quote: "it is not a matter of "have you tryed xyz distro" thats something linux zelots who dont admin and who are not in a large production shops have no clue about"

And now I'll be insulting back to yourself - most Windows admins are very poor admins, with relatively poor IT skills. Those that admin Linux setups, usually have a Unix background, and are much more highly computer literate. And you'll find that a Unix admin gets a lot more money than their counterpart Windows admin. These are generalisations of course.

Quote: "support (who is going to support it, how is it going to be supported? infrastucture support?)"

Ah, see that's the beauty of open source. You install it, configure it and it just keeps running. The vast majority of times, you don't need support. That only exists for poorly designed systems like Microsoft Windows. If you don't believe me, have a look at uptimes for major webservers - you'll have to go to around $350 or so to find your first Windows box. The rest are all Unixes or variants.

Quote: "just jamming suse with nis, or openldap is a very poor"

I haven't used either of these technologies to be honest, but from what I've heard/read, they work, and they work reasonably well. Maybe not as good as AD, but they do work. I'm sure AD isn't perfect either.

Now be a good boy and go play with your Windows computers.

Dave

You install it, configure it and it just keeps running. The vast majority of times, you don't need support

LOL. Thats rich. You might as well paint "I have very little experience with the real world" on the wall with that statement.

I work for a large corporation also. We run some very large scale *nix software on the back-end and guess what, we have a dedicated *nix support group.

You put any piece of software in a production enviroment where hundreds of users access it and you will have support to deal with. I don't care WTF OS you run.

wow, many assumptions to go arround

first: I have been a Linux and windows admin for years and have worked at small and very large corparations.(as in fortune 50)

and no I am not the one with a closed mind, if i where to goto my CTO/PHB and say hey i want to replace some of our servers with Debian, he would look at me funny and close the door.

it does not work that way in the real world, prodcution systems must have support both inhouse and vender. sure i can build a linux desktop image and roll it out... then what? how many other techs can support it?

sure there is vender lock in all arround the IT world, its a fact of life, you have internal apps and external apps written over a period of years some started before linux was even feasiable.

these are not easily migrated, for anyone not just my shop,

and sure redhat with kickstart and lots of scripting is pretty cool, but i can do the same with windows slipstream and sysprep. i will not blindly put something in just "because".

(debians version of kickstart its name slips my mind sucks:) ) altho ubuntu has support now for kickstart


its all a matter of perspective, it am not a microsoft shill by any means, and i am not bashing Linux by any means either. i am just a little sick, that linux guys(for lack of a better term) on the net always assume linux is the best at everything and should be rolled out always in place of microsoft. which is not true.
I spend alot of my day in bash and zsh but I also
edit GPOs and write vbs and perl scripts. i do what my employer pays me to. admin windows and linux machines and have them work together.


why can't someone have the best of both worlds? linux servers some linux desktops and a windows AD with exchange? is that a crime... sheshh...



-Nex6

"its all a matter of perspective, it am not a microsoft shill by any means, and i am not bashing Linux by any means either. i am just a little sick, that linux guys(for lack of a better term) on the net always assume linux is the best at everything and should be rolled out always in place of microsoft. which is not true. "

The way you say something can make it sound very different to others than yourself.

My part of the discussion wasn't about whether you yourself should use Linux, but whether it can be used in any setting Windows is in. I was simply pointing out that right now Linux is just as good for home and commercial use as Windows is with a few exceptions on both sides, which one works best simply depends on your training.

I was never challenging your use of Windows, what I was doing was trying to leave my own comments on statements you said which I didn't believe were accurate. I admit I did suggest that you could switch to Linux, but that's no worse than if I had suggested that a Linux user try Windows.

In that last sentence I quoted there is yet another example of what you think you are saying being different from what everyone else is reading. To me it sounds like you are saying that people who say Linux is just as good as MS Windows and can be used instead are liars. Sure, it isn't fair to say everyone should use Linux, but it is fair to say everyone can; distributions like SUSE are no more difficult to use than Windows, in fact I've found setting up networks with SUSE to be eaiser although it's multimedia support is a little disappointing.

It's no skin off my back whether you choose Windows or Linux, I myself have to use the first out of necessity and use the second out of preference.

I also recommend against anticipating zealous replies as you did in your original post, instead let your votes do the talking; however, use negative votes sparingly since the point of them is to reduce trolling, not vote down legit comments that you may disagree with. If you do this you will find future replies a little less defencive, people often want to have their side of the story heard without having to worry about being called a troll or zealot.

All in all I think this turned out well, you seem quite reasonable so I'm sure you won't take this the wrong way.

Bill Gates has already donated way more than Rockefeller ever did. Do you really think it buys him a better reputation donating $30bn vs. $1bn? I highly doubt it.

Bill Gates has done far more good than Mark Shutleworth has. Now, if you want to argue their good to evil ratio, that's a different story. But neither is evil and both wish to better the world, plain and simple.

"Bill Gates has done far more good than Mark Shutleworth has. Now, if you want to argue their good to evil ratio, that's a different story. But neither is evil and both wish to better the world, plain and simple."

Bill Gates has more money to donate in exchange for PR, but as a student with barely enough money to buy a spindle of 25 CD-Rs after living expenses I've gotten far more from Mark Shuttleworth. Bill Gates so far has only costed me money.

Oh, gotcha. Since he hasn't done anything good for you, it's irrelevant. The billions of dollars should be ignored because he's just trying to "buy PR".

I understand.

I didn't say Gates money means nothing; however, I am saying that comparing a multi-billionair's pocket change to the selfless funding of free OS for everyone by someone with only a fraction of the money Gates has is a very poor comparisson.

This has nothing to do with what I have to gain, although as as troll I can see how you might try to use that to your own ends.

I think it's a bad comparison too. Why didn't you just come out and say that in thef irst place?

I thought I had, depends on interpretation I guess.

But neither is evil and both wish to better the world, plain and simple

So long as the world doesn't threaten his Windows/Office monopoly.

So your saying that no one can improve there software if it was OSS except OSX and Microsoft programmers, based on what?

Although the code contributions might not be up to whatever standards you might have, open sourceing OS X, or simply allowing code contributions to the OS would mean faster innovation, feature implementation and all-round improvements. Also contributed code isn't necessarily bad quality, in fact because OSS developers have their code seen and improved by so many they'll probably have better programming practises after a few years of exprience than closed source developers I think.

When something is closed source you sometimes wonder what it is companies don't want you to see, not necessarily something bad but it's hard not to wonder.

LOL "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" is a "charitable organization". Implying that it is a charity. NOT!!!

It is an investment firm that doesn't even give 10% of its profit, let alone the base money which is from the Microsoft Corporation, not Mr. Gates.

This is blantant PR / spin to buy a reputation. But of course you all knew that, including the spin trolls that continually spam this site, using such terms as "Linux zealot"

And Bill Gates: I think he is a good guy and he is trying to do good things on personal side... Donation is donation... There is no such thing like "good/bad donation"...

Most people who run corporations are actually good people, who just happen to do bad things within the system. I got this insight from the guy who made 'The Corporation' documentary, so if a guy like that (probably a socialist himself) can say something of that nature, then it probably has some basis in fact.
I heard him on a liberal talk show (big surprise there, eh?) saying that CEOs are just like himself when he plays hockey - penalties that get him a two-minute timeout on the ice would get him 2 years behind bars on the street. Just like in a hockey game, when you're running a corporation, you play by different rules than everybody else. For better or worse, this is how the game is currently played. But when the CEOs leave the office every day and go home to their wife and kids, most of them are probably just like the rest of us ... only with a lot more money

"When I look at OSNews forums, at least %50 of the posts look like they are from 18 year old, zero tolerant, "I know everything because I just got few coding classes", "Linux rocks because not everyone can use it, and using it makes me look smart" kind of kids... "

We're forgetting about the "Windows rocks because it can play HL2 and GTA" 16 yr olds aren't we?

You sound like you're singling out a specific group. There are mature Linux users out there just like there are mature Windows and OS X users; however, like myself they probably get tired of all the kids looking for an hour of trolling fun and completely disregard any article comments.

"After all, it may not be the best solution on planet, but when it boils down to do some work, Windows + Office is waaaay better than OSS alternatives... (Yeah I know you can configure everything to work flawlessly and I did use OO.o and Ubuntu and all that stuff)... "<i/>

That is entirely subjective. You have to be careful not to cry troll and then inadvertently do the very thing you're complaining about.

[i]"And Bill Gates: I think he is a good guy and he is trying to do good things on personal side... Donation is donation... There is no such thing like "good/bad donation"...

Just grow up people, just grow up..."

People are naturally curious and want to know what is going on in the world, then they discuss it to see what other details people know and what opinions people have to offer. It's not necessarily about being immature, although some posts do come out sounding that way.

OSNews staff: please add in an edit feature for fixing typos and HTML errors.

Are you for real?, Linus devotes all of his time to the Linux community on that kernel for Linux, heard of it?

OSDL gets paid by funding, so I dont see what bigger contribution he can give. Is millions of Linux users across the world not enough and a free kernel not good enough?

It's got nothing to do with "OSS" people, since they have been donating there time without any money to live on.

Incredible. Just incredible.
Just how have Linus' contribution to OSS helped developing countries? Just how has it helped develop new vaccines?
Stop patting yourselves on your backs and get out there and do something that actually matters.

Thats the most stupidest comment I've ever heard. You think think bill Gates can make a REAL different with all his money?.

Ever heard of BandAid?, 10 years ago(and still) there rising millions for africa, Bob Geldof, people like that! yet the problem is not much different. It takes more that just contributing you stupid moron.

"Incredible. Just incredible.
Just how have Linus' contribution to OSS helped developing countries? Just how has it helped develop new vaccines?
Stop patting yourselves on your backs and get out there and do something that actually matters."

Linus' contributions gave those developing countries an OS to run on their computers, and people in third world countries do use that OSS software in large numbers.

People give what they can, Linus doesn't have millions of dollars to give to AIDS relief but he still gave something very good: a free OS that's free of charge.

I don't get why everytime Gates donates a huge sum of money which to him is negligible, everyone suddenly uses that as an attack asking why some OSS advocate who couldn't afford to do so doesn't match Gates' donation. I guess trolls just get desperate for ammunition.

Linus does contribute a lot to the Linux community.

But putting things into perspective, what would you rather have free software or hiv research (I think his foundation also donates to other types of research)/free computers including software to the marginalized society (doesn't matter what software is installed. better than having none. right?)?

thousands are dying from aids. I doubt that can be true if there is no linux around.

And how much you have to pay for zen? And you have to pay per seat as well?!? And how it is better then Windows?

I get paid for doign sysadmin job and I tell you AD and GPO , WSH + vbscript are best thing happened since sliced bread .AD is practically hassle free and just works resulting in real productivity gains .It also works out of the box with any windows workstation/server, without going trough hundred of configs and trial and errors.

What about automated deployment? - you know you build image and deploy it on multiple PC automatically? I havents seen any alternative to sysprep+ghost on linux . - from box to user ready taking only 5-10 minutes of admin time.

Linux is good for box you deploy once and dont touch (like web/ftp/dns/firewall) server .But sucks for most of other tasks in enterprise.

Quote: "Giving propietary software for free makes you in my opinion a (drugs)dealer.Give one sigarette for free in the hope they will get addicted soon."

Yes. This is just what that Brasilian guy said about Microsoft, and know he has Microsoft suing him! These free software packages are nothing more than trojan horses. At least Helen of Troy was attractive.

Dave

Who's talking about Linux here? Seriously, where? If someone says Windows is bad (which is more or less a fact) it doesn't mean he/she is a Linux zealot. Grow up and mind your language please, no one will take you serious this way.

Linux or any of the BSDs are able to compete very happily with a 0$ price tag - they are not even being given a chance in the educational institutions due to dirty deals done behind closed doors that are not in the interests of the public. Businesses have NO right to vote. If I had it my way, it would be illegal for ANY business to give a single cent of donations to ANY political party. Business owners and directors have rights as individuals to vote. Businesses do not. There's a rather interesting interview in this months Atomic MPC magazine with RMS where he comes to exactly the same conclusion. I've long since said this, before I even knew who RMS was, so it's not a matter of myself copying his thoughts. It's pure commonsense, and ensuring that the governments that are elected in by the public, are for the public, without any ulterior motives directed by businesses.

Australia is about to undergo a complete reform of it's IR (Industrial Relation) laws that will see a total power shift in favour of the business, at the total expense of the average worker. Gone will be any protections, employers will be able to (and will) do what they want, and if we don't do it, they'll just terminate your employment. John Howard is only concerned with appeasing the wealthy and the businesses, even if it means destroying the rights of 95% of the population. This is what happens when businesses end up having more "voting rights" than the individuals. A business should have no influence on governments, politicians or government bodies. Period.

Dave

Yea and our scumbag house and senate this year made it MUCH more difficult to declare bankrupcy to get out of debt. We probably live in the most worker-hostile nation on earth.

I didn't know that. Another X against Howard then. Since he's been in, he's done a lot of bad:

1. Got rid of the CES thru basically backdoor means (enacted it rather than legislated it via the senate).

2. Has totally made the Centrelink welfare system a naziesque welfare agency (I took a voluntary redundancy package from Centrelink after six years working there in June 99, due to disagreements with policies).

3. Complicated the Tax system unbelievably badly

4. Introduced a GST system, which has made no savings to the average person, in fact, average living costs have went up courtesy of the GST

5. Sided with the US, making Australia a terrorist target now

6. Lied many, many, many times to the Australian public without any accountability or guilt

7. Introduced the workplace reforms act in 1996 (despite Australian Unions taking this to the international court in the Hague and finding that it was a infringement of basic human rights - which his Australian government ignored and still ignores till today

8. Has refused to acknowledge the 'stolen generation' of Aborigines, and refused to apologise to the aborigines. He has also hinded the Mabo decision as much as he possibly could.

9. His attempt to introduce Draconian new IR laws with his senate majority.

Next to go will be medicare, the dole will be severely bashed and reduced, the disability pension will go, making disabled people work, he'll increase the age pension age to 75, and so on. Howard is firmly entrenched in the beliefs of a US style "user pays" system, to the detriment of 95% of our country's population (to benefit the other 5% who I don't give a rats ass about).

The average Australian is just too lazy to even want to know what's going on, and then they are so apathetic when they do find out...I want Australia, not another US state, which is sadly what we are becoming.

Dave

utter bull:

ALL OS's get updates and patches, crap:

debian:~# apt-get upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
abook apt apt-utils aptitude console-common cpp cron dselect exim4 exim4-base exim4-daemon-light g++ gcc gnupg groff-base
initscripts libnewt0.51 libpam-modules libpcre3 libreadline4 libx11-6 logrotate mc mutt netbase nmap slrn sysvinit tasksel telnet
tetex-bin whiptail xfree86-common xpdf xpdf-common xpdf-reader xpdf-utils
The following packages will be upgraded:
adduser base-config base-files console-tools dpkg exim4-config grep libbz2-1.0 libconsole libgcc1 libglib2.0-0 libkpathsea3 libltdl3
libpam-runtime libpam0g libusb-0.1-4 libwww0 login passwd perl perl-base perl-modules pppoeconf setserial sysv-rc tetex-base
tetex-extra urlview zsh
29 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 37 not upgraded.
Need to get 38.9MB of archives.
After unpacking 455kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


look 38MB from a shell server that i do updates on pretty often... sheesh...

-Nex6

BUT:

compare MAC OSX Linux (any distro) and windows as far patchs go they all get them and get them often. the only thing is windows requires more reboots. and Linux only requires reboots for kernel patches.

all in all i think its a wash..



-Nex6