Well, I haven't really bothered to investigate Vista fully. I use XP as a gaming platform and I use Debian profesionally (and I use Ubuntu at home for variety). Vista firstly just pisses me off with its change of interface. It feels like you have to be both stupider and smarter to make it work.

I do find it hard to believe Vista gets the same performance as XP. As you say, Vista uses more memory and I have been given to understand that it's really impossible to keep it from doing that. I also quite clearly remember a line from microsoft saying Visat isn't slower it just does more for you. That's the same thing to the end user. Still I haven't done the benchmarking I just have a feeling. Which is worth the paper it's written on.

I'll stick with Linux for myself unless I really want to play a game.

Isn't having a positive opinion about anything windows the definition of a slashdot troll ;).

Seriously though, my problems with Vista don't even get to the stability stage. There is the UI which basically sux. It makes me search for things which should've stayed in the same place. It is slow on decent hardware. The problem is I don't consider decent hardware to be something an IT'er would buy. I see decent hardware as being what a normal, non-gaming person would buy. It's slower than XP in any case and requires more memory.

I still recommend Windows to regular people however. I won't be their linux helpdesk and windows simply is easier and better for regular people. Mostly this is psychological but that is a really big issue.

Teaching them to use wikipedia as a starting point for further reference would be a good idea. Teaching them to use it as a primary reference is stupid. What they should be doing is teaching them how to look up information. Then either a book or a computer could be useful. Unfortunately, as sites like letmegooglethatforyou prove, people are really bad at looking things up, so for most people learning to use wikipedia probably sounds hard.

A compromise position, but you're only theoretically blackmailable because other people think its relevant. You could be a secret chocolate addict. If that is the position then you would be required to divulge all secrets. This argumentation doesn't fly with me.

The fact is that being gay is a problem in many countries. Being required to divulge it can cause you to lose jobs. So you hide it. Which means you are blackmailable. However that is the fault of the people effecitivelty forcing you to hide. If you simply refuse to answer questions which aren't relvant and are backed up by law then you can change that.

The point wasn't to demonize epileptics. However, even with medication, being epileptic is something you should be required to divulge for driving buses. Not so relevant if all you do is sit at a computer and read slash...program all day.

Same goes for almost any medication and anything involving heavy machinery. It's relevant so you have to tell. Otherwise it's your business.

I am fairly convinced many of these question would be illegal to even ask in an interview in the Netherlands. Saying that you can decline to answer is not a fair option because implicit is that you will be punished for not answering. I do not have to answer questions on my health, sexual preference or religion for any job unless relevant (epileptics probably shouldn't drive buses for example).

Asking such questions is inherently biasing the application process. I'm sure you van get away with it in the states. In my country you would end up saying sorry to a judge. You may get a union or two pissed off. Better not do it.

Of course the U.S. may consider sexual preference relevant for government fucntions. After all if you are of any sexuality other than straight or filthy rich then you are obviously hiding a secret so great that you are very blackmailable. Or you have no moral character.

Actually, it is the customers responsibility. I'm not saying banks or any other organization has no responsibilty, I'm saying you can't put everything on them and the whine when the system breaks down. This is your money we're talking about, a little caution is indicated. Sure, if they mess up you might be able to get reimbursed but isn't it better not to have to.

Lack of caution led us to where we are. This is true for the little people as well as the rich.

Good point. I like to educate people however. Even if your way is more effective. I like to tell people what I think and then if they ignore me I watch things blow up. If I like them I'll even tell them I told them so. Otherwise they probably won't see me again.

Of course they can do the same: "When OS is hacked who solves your problem? Some good samaritan? Who do you blame? Microsoft has a whole team of professional security experts who are standing by 24 hours a day...."

That is not the point. No one said open source meant 100% perfect software. The point with security is that if there is a problem you want to know about it right away and take steps. Thinking that by hiding away details means noone will know about your problems is naive. Security lies in how well your safe can resist being opened by someone who knows how it works and in keeping secret your combination. That last part is the biggest security hole in most systems.

Sure track record is important but any security system which doesn't open itself to public scrutiny is likely to be flawed. This is what you are taught if you take courses on security, this is what the real professionals believe. Keeping things secret will work as long there is one person who knows the secret and he has to be dead.