Why do we waste our time building the same bridge twice?
Hold on, I'll go get you your x86 assembler.
apt-get install kde installs a BUNCH of crap as well.
Which is why no one should ever install those metapackages in the first place. Tomboy isn't getting included in the default install, only in the GNOME metapackage.
I think I'd have to agree with the OP. Ape-ing microsoft is not where I'd personally like to see linux and its various desktop environments go. I'd prefer we do it *better*. Evolution, as far as I see it, is the former. Same goes for mono. If only all environments would take the best ideas from the others and choose to either get rid of or push aside the other stuff.
First off, I don't use evolution, I only cited it as an example.
Second, this is not about "ape-ing" anyone. It's about getting the job done and creating great applications that rival Microsoft and other desktops. What tool someone uses should be a nonissue, in the long run. There is little issue with the Mono runtime, it's been around since (believe it or not) before the Novell Microsoft agreements, it has had no legal trouble in the four years of its development, and there is little reason that it should. This simply comes down to the issue of what a developer wants to develop from, and nothing more.
What if Microsoft had created C++? Would you be shunning GNotes?
If it wasn't the Gnotes developer that had started this little war, I may be more open to consideration of the issue, but there is a HUGE COI in that, imo. Comes across to me that he is just trying to get back at the Tomboy team because they made it into the dependancies and not him. And instead of one-upping the application with new features, etc, he decides to simply attack the framework which the application is based on.
And, for the record, I don't use any mono applications; I just have the ability to look at things objectively and not judge things on the company that may or may not be related to a piece of software's development language. Modding the OP +4 insightful just goes to show how narrow minded
And ubuntu even threatening their users to install a lower quality Mono-dependent music player to replace Rhythmbox just because the Mono zealots are very, very loud about how they want to push this MS technology on everybody using free software.
Almost as loud as the people opposed to "MS technology," developed before Microsoft had anything to do with Novell or any other GNU/Linux.
I like bashing Microsoft as much as the next guy, but only when it's necessary. If anyone on
http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/?p=124 http://np237.livejournal.com/24065.html http://robertmh.wordpress.com/?p=12 "These are *APPLICATIONS* and forcing me to install them is, to my mind, antithetical to the open source ideal." "Evolution serves no useful purpose in today's world" Altogether, this whole argument just goes to show that users, even GNU/Linux users can be grossly uneducated on topics, hearing Microsoft, and jumping on the attack. We should mysteriously drop F-Spot and GnomeDo and Evolution and see how these morons react.
Back in November a few days before elections, one of the group's members Jim March (if you google the name + Diebold, sequioa etc, you see that he is the real deal) sent a request to the group looking for volunteers to help monitor processes in the voting systems which were not being adequately tracked, such as "monitoring the 22 "regional receiving stations" where ballots come in from the field for modem uploads to the central tabulator" and "Those able to pull only a shorter shift can visit a polling place as it closes and photograph the end-of-day vote tallies as they come out of the precinct voting machines...before those votes can be hacked either in-route via memory card manipulation or at the central tabulator's MS-SQL database"
What went on on the list after this was a disturbing expose of the Maricopa County and Pima County arizona electronic voting systems. While these are not of the "download, vote scan and upload" variety, the similarites, and how "secure" voting systems may soon be implemented, raise many questions about the validity and security of using, among other things, unprotected access and ms-sql databases (with a protected front-end, mind you, but they are easily subverted by using Access or direct SQL commands on the databases, with NO PASSWORDS in some cases)
* On election night, observers spotted an MS-Access manual being referred to by the lead operator. MS-Access is banned from voting systems (ain't approved) and the Diebold central tabulator database is in MS-Access format. If you get to it with Diebold's front-end, it looks secure enough. Get to it in Access and all security falls apart completely...you can do anydamnthing you want.
* When we got the audit logs in December 2006, there was what appeared to be data manipulation plus they had peeked into who was winning and losing based on the mail-in vote five days *before* election day. This was illegal as hell, and they did this consistently across most elections - not just the RTA.
* We fought a public records suit, won, and found yet more rotten stuff including a lot of memory card re-uploads, more than any normal election ever. I'll go into details if anybody wants but let's just say, it looked bad.
>> MS-Access is banned from voting
>> systems (ain't approved)
> This is a very refreshing change from the status quo! Out of curiousity,
> what are the approved DBs for voting systems?
You're asking the wrong question
ONLY those pieces of software specifically used for elections can be used in elections, in most states anyhow, AZ being one of 'em.
The proprietary database front ends by Sequoia, Diebold and ES&S are approved. Sequoia uses an MS-SQL back end, Diebold uses the MS-Access runtime back end (they're switching to MS-SQL on the back end "soon") and I forget what ES&S is doing. But it's basically the same: proprietary front-end application, likely an MS back end.
In the case of Diebold, the MS-Access front end (the boxed consumer
product) can communicate with the existing back-end and back-door the
whole election. By diddling with the data files (which are
On a more serious note: banks have procedures to prevent insiders from hacking accounts. You can't absolutely block people from doing it, but you can block people from tampering with the discovery/oversight mechanism. Serious computer accounting takes the term "audit log" seriously.
Diebold put the audit log into the MS-Access database as just another table.
Basically, if you can't trust the physical machines, how on earth will you be able to trust online voting? Sure, it isn't the "download, vote, scan and upload" type of voting that March writes about, it is scary to think how easily such "secure" systems can be completely 0wned. How hard would it be to manipulate the online votes, either en route or once they are counted and in one of the mentioned voting systems?
Voting systems such as was described in the OP are a thing of the past. They will soon be replaced with such lovely proprietary and "secure" technologies I've described above. Hell, who knows, we GNU/Linux guys may not even get a say in the online voting if such systems are purely M$ powered technologies.
The real question is: Do you trust someone else with your vote? Are any voting measurements safe to hacking/changing (Paper or not)?
I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky