04.15.2004 || 11:00

Linux and Afghanistan

Hm. It's been a while. I've been stupidly busy.

Okay, I just saw an irritating banner advert for 'Penguicon 2.0,' which is apparently a Linux/Sci Fi convention that's starting this week. I gotta say it: I can't think of anything less likely to help Linux get mainstream than the constant pairing off with Sci Fi geekery -- Okay, aside from the fact that Apple's the only camp that even *seems* to care about making *nix fun to use, but that's just a given. It just really bugs me that the coolest stuff around is sometimes handicapped by the fact that it's inextricably linked to niches that the general public wouldn't touch with a six-metre pole. Don't get me wrong; I have a slight geeky side to me, but I don't get off on man pages -- which is why I'm thankful for
man -t name > /tmp/name.ps
open /tmp/name.ps
(No, I have no idea if that works outside of Mac OS X. I assume it does, though).

Uhm, not the point. What *is* the point, though, is that it irks me to see so few people trying to put a respectable face on Linux, not because it's the Linux Geek's duty to make the zeros of the world Linux-savvy, but because someone's gotta take Windows down from the inside; Mac Users have all done it by spending thousands on new machines, but not everyone can or wants to go that route. Hell, some people are actual numbers people, not artsy types -- or so I hear ;-) . I have no real problem with the intel/no name architecture, but the general computer user is bearing the increasingly unwieldy weight of Windows, and I don't even think it's fair at this point. Or, as Aaron Veigh said in a recent OSnews article: "Just because you can do anything with Windows, doesn't mean it's the best overall computing experience. The cracks are appearing in the Microsoft monopoly's facade: increasing feature bloat, lagging performance on ever-faster hardware, security nightmares thanks to ever-more-interoperable software..."

Yeah, I know, no games. That would come as part of a wider, more user-friendly Linux presence on the desktop. We both know it.

Aside from that, I could sit here and complain about Bush's sabre rattling on primetime TV this week, or the fact that our PM has extended Canada's involvement in Afghanistan for another year... Actually, I think I will. Does it make sense to anyone to give Canada *any* sort of peacekeeping duty in a place where they killed more enemies per person than the US troops? It seems somewhat ridiculous to me that a country that *invaded* a place should be allowed to be part of peacekeeping missions there. It's just plain crazy talk. Let's call a spade a spade, or in this case an occupationary force an occupationary force.

Because calling an occupationary force 'peacekeepers' is just as crazy as calling the Iraqi resistence 'rebels' or 'insurgents' or any of the other words we see on the news these days...



||Gods save the Queen,
||cf

back || forth

older shite

One last little note... - 09.21.2006

de-stressing, biking and terrorism - 06.06.2006

Mildly stressed... - 05.29.2006

More crime stupidity - 05.28.2006

Scary stuff - 05.25.2006



diaryland.com
Oh yeah, the page and everything
on it is ©2000 - 2005 to me, alright ?
don't copy without asking.

Original ©reation 2005