Re: Don't re-elect our politicians
> % We live in the U.S. where our
> % politicians are elected.
> Really? As I recall, the majority of
> you voted for Gore, not for
> George Double-U. He got president
> because of an extremely outdated
> election system and because of a strong
> army of lawyers behind him and because
> of a lot of money to pay them (and the
> campaign).That is not what I consider a
> democratic election.Greetings from
> Germany, -
Sure the election system in the US is somewhat
outdated and IMHO urgently needs an overhaul, but
the german system isn't better either. There you can
only vote for a party and they can post anyone they
like to be "president". So the names on the vote are
the party designated candidates, but no law is there if
the parties changed their minds after the election.
That isn't democratic either. The best out there seems
to be switzerland - the people vote and elect directly.
There are even votes for governement decisions to be
made, i.e. for cryptographics - they let the people vote
and the outcome is done. Now that's democratic.
Jeff Covey did a very precise anlysis
Jeff is absolutely right, but I wouldn't go back that far.
I also started with CP/M - moved to MS-DOS (what couldn't stand long on the machine) and finally went for Unix. Since the commercial *nixes were to expensive that days I got hold of the first BSD 4 for x86 on the net. It was buggy, hat some kernel panics a day and was more or less unusable for daily work. That was the time when linux wasn't there yet. Some releases later BSD was getting more stable on the PC platform. It was stable long before Linux was close to be a "real OS". But why isn't BSD the most used x86 Unix today ? In my opinion it's superior to Linux from the sight of a kernel hacker. Did you ever look at the kernel tree ? Everything's where it belongs, there are reasonable comments in it and it's clean and structured. No assembler where not needed. Long years I didn't switch to Linux because every software needing some kernel includes had to be patched for the strange order of includefiles. BUT - what today makes Linux the more popular OS is that Linux meanwhile supports a rather large number of usable applications and it supports hardware BSD didn't support. For me that's been the reasons to switch over to Linux.
The Problem with BSD was the same as with other Unix flavours. There where several source trees because the developers couldn't unite to produce software based on the demand. Think of OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD - just to mention three. That's what could give Linux a drawback too. We have several distributions with support for one or another software. But in some details all those distributions differ, so it's _not_ one Linux, there are at least 5 or 6. There again is no standard. Not for technical reasons, but for personal reasons. For a business deployment on a large scale Linux needs to offer a standardized environment. That's what makes Windows a good OS for business. Nobody cares about bugs or technical superior things - at least not those people who decide what to buy. Because those people mostly don't have the knowledge of what's "technical superior". They decide in terms of
usability (means applications every secretary can handle)
costs for transition (how much is it to move to this)
security of investment
where the last point is, at least in europe one of the major points. Personal reasons are often to choose what's the market leader. I've seen companies buying SAP for several millions. But SAP was not the right software for those companies, but it's not the fault of the one making the decision - because he can stand up to his boss and say "I couln't foresee that the market leader produces unusable software... (in thoughts - for this company)". That's what saves his job.
Conclusion: We need standards on linux, we need easy to use applications, we need better marketing. There is no "better" - there is something like "usable out of the box". If it offers return of investment bugs are tolerated.