Why Linux Will Never Be More Popular than Windows

I tried to jump on the Linux bandwagon. It's free and I had an older computer, a Linux CD, and I loaded the latter onto the former. Worked great. No problems. Loaded sans errors. All that did, however, was give me the basic operating system. Which means that I have a box that I can look at (using my video screen), move a mouse around on (using my mouse) and occasionally type away at (using my keyboard).

But I want my computer to do more than that. I actually want it to work. The first thing I did was to load OpenOffice. Think of OpenOffice as the open-source version of Microsoft Office. It has a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, and database program. In the Windows environment, loading a new program simply involves locating the appropriate .exe file, double-clicking it with the mouse, and (typically) voila! It now works. Things aren't so simple in Linux. Loading things in Linux involve command lines ("sudo apt-get install X"), moving around directories, compiling, creating source code, the list seems is endless. When things don't work as they are supposed to, it can take days to work through the problem. The OpenOffice did load fairly quickly and (somewhat) painlessly. It was also a steep learning curve. At that time, I learned about being a root user ("su") and permissions and authentications and a myriad of other details.

Shortly thereafter, I wanted to be able to print what I was writing or reading. Here we go again. Command lines, CUPS, printer daemons, on and on and on. I managed to get the printer working, even though its on a network server. Again, another day and a half of getting it to work.

But the flatbed scanner remains on my primary system, which remains as Windows. Why? you ask. For the simple reason that I just tried to get a small USB-to-phone box working on my Linux system. I've now spent well over 12 hours trying to get it working. I believe I've now seen every form of computer error code known to mankind. I may have even seen some unique ones. For all that effort, it still does not work. Do you know how long it took to get it to work on the Windows box? About five minutes. The same goes for my many external hard drives, my 12-in-1 external card reader, my gaming joystick, my iPaq cradle, on and on.

Yes, all you Linux geeks out there can mock Windoze or M$ or Micro$oft or Winblows or whatever spurious name you wish to give it. But it works. And it works simply

I already hear the Linux protesters out there. "Everything is designed for Windows. Almost no one designs things for Linux!" True. Why do you think everyone designs their products for Windows? Yes, it's the most popular operating system. But I also see people writing software and designing products for Macs. Frankly, I think there's an issue thats bigger than the OS popularity. It's commonality. One copy of Windows XP Home is the same as another. And a copy of Mac OS X is the same as another. But Linux? Let's see, you have Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, the list seems is endless.

Oh, and don't bother boring me with the "One is the OS and the other is a GUI". I don't care. To me, the GUI is the OS. They're one and the same. I'm a user. I. Just. Need. It. To. Work. And I need it to work simply. I hate the command line. I don't want to have to load development libraries and worry about whether I have the correct authentication.

I. Just. Need. It. To. Work.

In the meantime, we Windows users will continue to make Bill Gates the second wealthiest man person in the world. Not that I'm happy about that, but until we see some commonality and simpler interfaces in the Linux world, the watch-word for Bill Gates will continue to be "ka-CHING".

And Then What...?

I see that the protesters are at it again.

Do something in Darfur!

Here's my question, Do what? Send in troops? Not on a bet. You geniuses believe that the best way to "stop the war" in Iraq is to "Bring the troops home". Yeah. Do that. Bring'em home. That will end the war.

Not.

All that will do is allow all the various factions (Sunni, Shia, al-Qaeda, whomever) to have a simple crack at each other. The war will not only not end, it will get worse.

So, instead, we should pull them out and send them into Darfur? Huh-unh. How many times have we sent in troops in amongst an Islamic factional feud, a pan-Arab feud, or a pan-African feud and actually had a lasting peace? Anyone? Anyone?

Give yourself a cookie if you said, "Zero!" That's right. A big, fat goose egg for ya. Let's tally up the scoresheet, shall we?

• Beirut, Lebanon - 1957 - 1958
• Afghanistan - 1980s
  
• Beirut, Lebanon - 1983
• Somalia - 1992
  
• The Balkans - 1990s
• Afghanistan - 2001
• Iraq - 2003

Note that, of all of these fights, we can only take credit for starting one (Iraq, 2003). All of the others were the people of the region themselves picking up arms and starting the slaughter. We came in afterwards and tried to help. We wound up getting our troops killed instead. Mind you, these people have been killing each other for centuries without any help from us.

Ending a war is similar to making psychological therapy work; it will only happen if the patient (combatants) want it to happen. The Arabs and Muslims (many times one and the same) seem to have a gene that says, "I must fight, kill and die!" Hence, we can try to "negotiate, compromise, rationalize" with them all we want. And it won't do a damn bit of good.

The best thing to do: Cut'em off. I mean completely. Forget simple embargoes. I mean totally, absolutely, ruthlessly. Don't send our troops into a region. Surround the region. Nothing goes in. Nothing comes out. Our troops have a much easier time of telling who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The good guys are the guys already outside the war zone. The bad guys are anyone inside the war zone. No one leaves, no one goes in. Same for anything animal, vegetable, or mineral. Negotiations for a permanent peace begin once everyone has used up all of his ammo, food, and/or people. When whoever is left shows up at the border waving white flags, then and only then will we discuss things.

Until then, do anything in Darfur? Not a chance.

More Islamic Alarmism

One of the latest headlines out of that most useful of "world bodies", the United Nations, once again points to just how worthless that body is.

"Islamaphobia on rise, especially in Europe - U.N. envoy"

Mr. Doudou Diene, the UN special rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, (Did you know that, the longer your title, the lower your position?) states that the amount of "intolerance" against Islam world-wide points towards a serious problem. His evidence?

"Recent acts of defamation in the shape of blasphemous sketches in Sweden and posters in Switzerland reinforce this conclusion."

Huh? That's the best you can do? Point towards a single cartoon of Muhammed, and it points towards the terrible intolerance of the Western nations? Tell me this: How does a caricature show intolerance? And where is the anger when someone puts a Christian cross in urine and calls it "art"?

Next question: Did that cartoon actually kill anyone? You'll have to forgive me here, but on 9/11, I lost almost 3,000 of my fellow citizens. How many people did that cartoon kill? Okay, more than one. Why? Because the Islamists got so pissed off, they actually went out and killed other Islamists.

It really sucks when certain people discover that no right is absolute. Freedom of religion doesn't trump freedom of expression. That's what really pisses off those fundamentalist Muslims, isn't it? They want men to be supreme, women to be compliant, children to be unheard and unseen, and everyone else to know that Muhammed is, in actuality, God.

Bullshit.

That caricature did not incite to violence, as a Muslim TV show in Lebanon did recently. The "grandfather" of the current Muslim fundamentalist movement made much more violent statements, yet nothing is said of that. Of course not. The Western nations, especially the US, are responsible for all the worlds ills.

Well, we're not. We didn't start this crap. But we're having to deal with it. Do you know why Iraq is such a mess? It's because the people of the Middle East wouldn't know peace if it came up and bit them in the ass. Peace? They have no idea of the concept. The idea of compromise doesn't enter into their vocabulary. So stop with the exhortation that we're causing all of their problems by being "intolerant". When it comes to intolerance, the Western nations are even in the same league as those of the Middle East.

If you want a shorter response, here it is: Bite me.