It is idiotic childish comments like at the start of this thread that put many possible Linux users off even wanting to become members of the community.

The Government pays for an awful lot of software that runs under Linux, probably more than under Windows.

I always assumed the US military uses bleeding edge technology. Why would they use a dated operating system? Are the nukes running DOS???

Using "bleeing edge technology" means regularly throwing out working tech. No the U.S. military doesn't do that.

I don't know if nukes run DOS. But they do use floppy disks.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ie-4175580727/

I just hope in a real war, our weapons don't freeze because of BSOD.

navy gives. microsoft receives. but sure. there is a coercive element.give"evil"?
"monkey"?
o_O doesnt need to. yup. XD "risk their lives for our country" u-huh. like bill hick's said, "no one is a threat to us". that was the funniest bit of this, that prompted me to reply. for our country. XD oh for it to be in reality as in that naive idealism. yep. that's what they do. yeah, uhh... how much value can your navy have at protecting your country if the corporation can have that much power over them? ... is the coersion really that absolute that they've been so completely owned by microsoft? i doubt it. i'm sure with a 9million investment, they could get everything moved on to something more sane, like libertybsd. that would make a lot more sense for such an organisation. though... once on microsoft's operating system... maybe the coersion really is that strong (is it?)... with that kind of uncheckable backdoor... scary. waaa! microsoft own the navy! lol ok, i take back my previous statement about what was the funniest thing in this thread to me. XD this is now the funniest.yeah... i suggest keep at that. google a little deeper. XD better yet, get a websearch or version of google (like startpage, or scroogle(aw, it died)) that wont just end up in an echo chamber of your own confirmation bias.

P.S.
first, take the test to see where your two axis political position is
https://politicalcompass.org/test
then, see where the candidate representatives' positions are.
https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
better to vote as close as possible.

if that quiz was too long for you, here's one in just 10 yes/maybe/no questions!
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php/

:.S frighteningly, they can.
and there's no wisdom test before voting.he does not realise. and isnt.

you do realise what communism is right? ~ dont answer, that's rhetorical.
dugan, try taking that political compass test or shortest political quiz. it may empower you with a broader perspective. it's easy to be duped thinking all politics fit on a one dimensional line. second dimension can lift one's perception to see the run-around they've been getting, gaining one personal freedom, while losing two economic freedoms, n gaining one economic freedom while losing two personal freedoms. ... them authoritarians of all ilks like to play that game. cant trust em.

:3


well. that was fun. ^_^

Of course I do. It's government ownership of, and control over, all businesses. A necessary precondition for the MICROSOFT (business) MUST BE COMPELLED (by the government) TO WORK FOR THE NAVY (government) FOR FREE BECAUSE THEY OWE THEM (typical communist guilt-trip) demand to take effect.

What the hell did you think communism was before I explained it to you?

Not to mention:

"barley"?
o_O

I bet that was a Freudian slip.

I think the soldiers currently stationed in Afghanistan might disagree with you. They may not be be defending our shores against an invasion but their lives are very much at risk just the same.

Regards...

so... in your mind, communism and fascism [edit - oops, i should say "totalitarianism" there, not "fascism", right? ~ i'm oft making that slip up. understandable, but unhelpful.] are synonymous? because the criteria you've set out is common to both.

I the hell thought communism is a political philosophy created by marx, corrupted by lenin, leading to stalin. to characterise it as in theadvocates model, it started with 100% personal freedom and 0% economic freedom, then drifted forth losing more and more personal freedom through the successive corruptions of the original idealistic concept, through improper (and naive) implementation. communism in that pure (idealised marxist) form, to my knowledge, has never existed in implementation in reality. only in philosophy. interestingly, likewise, the alternative flipside of 100% economic freedom and 0% personal freedom (oft promoted as "free-market" and "laissez-faire"), slides more authoritarianward, losing even economic freedom in implementation.
and after you explained it to me, i the hell still thought so. XD

so anyway... even if someone were advocating what you seemed to be thinking they were advocating, "communism" needn't have been the only thing to have that characteristics. could have been 0% economic freedom, and 0% personal freedom, "totalitarianism", that they were advocating.

thing is though... with communism, in an idealised sense, as should be with any political ideology/philosophy/system, ... we might do well to ask, "who owns the government", at least as much as we ask what the government owns.

i thought it was supposed to be we the people [ed. ~that owned the government]. but ... a quick look at the lobbying system, shows that's not really the case in current implementation. ... even past accepting what we have isnt really democracy, isnt really people power, isnt really the will of the people transcribed through "representatives". even the "representatives" cannot represent us, even if they were not under far louder pressure from the lobbyists, as they have party whips etc ensuring they adhere to the party line. o_O

when Ghandi was asked what he thought of western democracy, he famously responded:

"I think it would be a good idea."

I agree.

an oligarchy cabal of corporate interests is not in our best interests. ... no matter how effective a democracy-pretence show they put on for us.

p.s.
now i'm not sure specifically what the op was advocating (besides the right wing and extremely authoritarian donald drumpf kicking someone's ass), but communism didnt seem to be it. nor need that have been the only extrapolation from what they wrote, nor the only alternative offered to the status-quo. the line "Leave the Navy alone Microsoft!" didnt suggest to me that the government should own microsoft. it suggested to me, an alternative provider. maybe i'm just too keen to take the original contract as it was, ignoring the additions later from the clause stating microsoft could change the contract any time they want, after the agreement, which, leads to the extended extortio~ support & payment thereafter. ^_^

all of them?

[edit - n it wasnt the lives at risk bit that sent me into a cringe-laugh. it was the "for our country".]

Exactly.

(rest of your trying-to-sound-smart word salad snipped)

They would be wrong then, they aren't risking their lives for their country or the citizens of that country. They are risking their lives for political agendas that only benefit those hiding away in an ivory tower playing at despot. This is an entirely unacceptable and despairing reality and the sooner the masses stop making excuses for this tragedy the sooner these soldiers can come home to their families without destroying someone else home or killing their family members.

The op made no indication about limiting any economic freedom, but rather about changing technology to something that didn't suck so much. Communism had nothing to do with this thread until you erroneously mentioned it.

No, he was calling for Microsoft to be punished for benefiting from their support work instead of doing it for free. Yes that's a limit to economic freedom.

I'm actually rather surprised that both of you read it differently.

BTW, post #20 starts with "oh orbea, why did u hafta show me this thread? :P" but the first orbea post I see is #26. What's going on, you two?

Who doesn't make millions from the navy each year?.edu Morons, no.

erm... but... microsoft have a monopoly on support for microsoft products. seems to be limiting freedom to me. now i suppose that might be a matter of debate as to whether monopolies are an expectant result/goal of total economic freedom. tho i see that as an (evidenced irl) inevitable slippage from the "free market" idealism, towards authoritarianism.

who was it who said "the more free the market, the less free the people"? seems a reasonable aphorism... at least when looking at the predominantly authoritarian right wing political establishment.

if money = power, and free market inherently leads to increasing wealth for some by (as fromwin2lin phrases it) taking from others, then, no chance of the free market heading any other way, towards, if not monopoly, at least a cabal of plutocratic (rule by rich) interests.

and, try as i might, i cant find anyone advocating microsoft be "punished for benefiting from their support work instead of doing it for free", until you just brought that up then. maybe fromwin2lin will come back and clarify, stating that explicitly.

maybe i should have googled it more. maybe then i'd have seen that is what fromwin2lin was saying, as dugan claims.

tho... as i do...
https://www.startpage.com/do/search?...ft&lui=english
https://www.startpage.com/do/search?...nt&lui=english
etc
and skim through... not only am i not getting that impression, i'm also getting an impression that drumpf also doesnt know what he's saying.

please do again explain anything you think i dont understand.

orbea showed me this thread.
*shrug*
maybe it's some nefarious conspiracy! *_*
... not sure how to explain more about what's going on with that, other than that.
... lq's not the only line of communication on the internet. :P sometimes people come across threads because other people share those threads. *shrug*