Munich Said To Be Moving Away From Linux/LiMux, Back To Microsoft

[bug77]

Nobody moving away, one person just demanding.

I know in Russia one person decides for the whole council, but I assure you it's different in Munich

[rockworldmi]

Linux/BSD and Open Source community should first focus on Consumer market share then push it from client side into Enterprise. Classic example of this is BlackBerry despite being stable and Enterprise software they were forced out because of end users/employees used to something else.

[anarki2]

:dddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

[Wingfeather]

Germans...

Right, right, someone's ethnicity.

... or leftists, some else's: greedy bankers, abortionists, populists ....

Uhhhhhhh, those are all lifestyle choices.


It is little frightening you don't see the difference.

[Michael_S]

Linux/BSD and Open Source community should first focus on Consumer market share then push it from client side into Enterprise. Classic example of this is BlackBerry despite being stable and Enterprise software they were forced out because of end users/employees used to something else.

Unfortunately I think you have the right of it. The tiny tragedy here isn't that Munich is going back to Windows. The enormous tragedy is that consumer computing hasn't shifted to FOSS enough that other cities are moving in the opposite direction.

Munich should have been the first of many across the world, instead of a fluke. We haven't done enough.

[starshipeleven]

Are these your thought?

No, that's how stuff is here (not an english-speaking country, but I know some cases of this in english-speaking countries too). I gave the most likely explanation of it.

How is in your place may of course differ.

That "expanded/enhanced/modern" definition of "racism" is bollocks for it removes virtually any "virtual" boundaries of its possible application. (it's inasmuch a linguistic dilemma as it is the fact that next generations give increasing less toss about linguistics".

Any linguist will laugh his ass off at this statement and then tell you that this is language evolution. Always been like this, will always be like this.

I'm always fond of pulling the example of "vagina" which in english (and other languages) is used for, well you know what. For Ancient Romans (people talking in latin anyway) "vagina" is the scabbard, a sheath for bladed weapons.

Some anatomist in the middle ages thought it was funny (they used latin for sciencey matters), and this is the result. Words get recycled, and change meaning as time goes by.

So we always, when calling others, will be using: Germans... or leftists, some else's: greedy bankers, abortionists, populists .... fcuk, there is no end to it!! Each time we do that we are racists?

Technically speaking, yes, that's all the same discrimination due to being part of a group or having some traits, racism is only a subset of this.

Or is discriminating people because of skin colour more evil than the above? That's just one of the random arbitrary reasons you could discriminate people for.

Although it's wise what you wrote I say I disagree, and that it's best not to forcibly, or like others out of being purely lazy and not giving a toss, change, deform that old good definition of "racism", when it's been valid for centuries, let's not invalidate it now.

It's not invalidated, it's expanded to cover more cases of the same, and hit them with the same weight that "racism" carries.

I mean it's not "microaggressions" or other nonsense like that.

[Luke_Wolf]

Are these your thought?

That "expanded/enhanced/modern" definition of "racism" is bollocks for it removes virtually any "virtual" boundaries of its possible application. (it's inasmuch a linguistic dilemma as it is the fact that next generations give increasing less toss about linguistics".

It is the descriptive form in which information crosses different media and then reaches a receiver. There in that form, 99.9% of the times will be a reference to trait(s) because the object(s) needs to be characterized somehow. I think this how the language works and we always will be referring to characteristics of the object in order to describe it. Whether loosely or specifically. And then it is the action(s) - what has been done or being done which is another important attribute which we use to refer to define our object, when the object is responsible for the action, makes or causes it, etc.

So we always, when calling others, will be using: Germans... or leftists, some else's: greedy bankers, abortionists, populists .... fcuk, there is no end to it!! Each time we do that we are racists?

Although it's wise what you wrote I say I disagree, and that it's best not to forcibly, or like others out of being purely lazy and not giving a toss, change, deform that old good definition of "racism", when it's been valid for centuries, let's not invalidate it now.

long live & prosper.

If you think racism has been defined by skin color historically, or just bloodlines you're badly mistaken. Racism has always been: prejudice held against an ethnic people. Of which the Germans count which has nothing to do with national borders as for example a substantial part of the Swiss people would be considered ethnically German, with the other majority being ethnically French.

[RussianNeuroMancer]

I know in Russia one person decides for the whole council, but I assure you it's different in Munich

Oh, well.. I mixed up council with consul

[lejeczek]

Any linguist will laugh his ass off at this statement and then tell you that this is language evolution. Always been like this, will always be like this.

I know lazy linguists, there are just people, also lazy.
And I'd question, or disagree with how they call it - evolution - Aas we know by looking back at the greatest evolution of all, we would expect quite the opposite, I would.
What you, what they call evolution of language, with regards to "rasizm" I see as devolution.
And yes, things change but when you have complete control over that process of change you strive to make that change for better.
(but we've just been served "german?" example a few times so... maybe not?)
But here, we devalue the language instead, for the lack of ... simply, effort, just an effort.

Let me give you an example, but I'm sure you see this everywhere:
When a given language is foreign.
There is language which with its vocabulary expresses all sorts of things, everything. But its native speakers, for all the obvious reasons I've suggested before, will just not resort to that vocabulary when they are confronted with a foreign language, so they... you basically end up hearing them using "alien" words or pharases even though you know, they know they don't have to, it's already there, language already had it for them and! during that they talk between selves, only one language's native speakers.

This is that one example where linguists use word "evolution" when it's wrong. It's the opposite.
This is just to show that linguists sometime talk bollox.

So there were no linguists when we needed them, most, to name a "new" phenomena. Thus now, we will be calling each other "racist" every other day. (well, hopeful not all of people)
Have a good end of the week.

[L_A_G]

...

Racism is a rather specific belief that one or more races are better than others. It doesn't necessarily even need to include discrimination based on this.

Your nationality most certainly does not define your race and it's even more ridiculous that people like you insist that criticism and mockery of collections of ideas, which is what all religions are at the fundamental level, is somehow racist. By that logic bashing nazism and religious fundamentalism is also racism, which even you have to see is completely idiotic.

Seriously thou, calling someone "racist" for bashing the population of a country or a collection of ideas is essentially the same as calling Windows "Linux".