Today I was wandering around on the net and ended up at National Public Radio which is one way to get a taste of home since I often listen to NPR in the car wherever I happen to be living when I'm in the states.

Looking around I found the program Justice Talking and specifically this topic, "Creationism v. Evolution: Will Religion or Science Prevail?" caught my attention.

See these articles on slashdot (GoHip.com ActiveX Wreaks Havoc) and wired (What Is Hip? Not GoHip.com
)

The Open Source advocates always like to claim that open source produces better software.  My question is where's the proof?  It seems as though everybody takes it for granted that it's true without actually checking into it.  The arguements are compelling.  More eyes on the code should mean that more features get added and more bugs get fixed and so we should get better software but I think if we actually look that's not the case.

The Open Source people usually point Emacs, GCC, Linux, Perl and Apache. That's about as far as they get. Maybe they add sendmail or fetchmail in there. A few of the new desktops might make it too like KDE or GNOME.

I saw this on the sci.lang.japan newsgroup and thought it was pretty cool.  Mr. Brett Robson used it for his signature

I saw the movie with 47 other Star Wars fans and not one of us left with a smile on our faces. The original 3 movies worked for 2 reasons. 1) The effects were state of the art and light years ahead of everything else. 2) The stories were compelling and involving. None of this was true with "The Phantom Menace". The effects were not state of the art nor were they or could they be light years ahead of the rest. They were basically just standard fair for CG effect.

I just finished reading the essay, "How Red Hat Software Stumbled Across a New Economic Model"   It is probably the first pro−linux article I've read that mostly seemed to make sense.  I suggest you read it.

I believe the major arguement made to adopt linux is, since it is Open Source, you the user have the control to adapt it to your needs (assuming you can program or can find somebody that can and can afford his fees.)

It also makes the point (as do many other papers) that maintanence, support and distrubution are among the few known ways to make a living in the Open Source world.

The Y2K thing is starting to bug me. Not the actual problem but the hype. Personally I don't believe there will be an actual problem. At least not any major ones caused by computers. The real problems will happen because of various people over−reacting to the supposed threat.

This is mostly a beef with GNU.

First let me start off by saying I have nothing what−so−ever against people writing software and giving it away for free with or without source and with or without re−distribution rights and with or without modification rights.  GPLed or whatever you want to call it.  I think that's very cool and I've done it myself.