Asa Jay's weblog

I currently receive an email newsletter called WinXP news, which is also available on their web site. Vol. 7, #16 – Apr 17, 2007 – Issue #273 talks about Open Source and asks the question if one is really better than the other. I just had to respond to this in several ways, here are some of my thoughts.
When talking about Open Source, the author states:
“If I find myself stuck with a hunk of junk that some stranger gave away or my free
download hoses my system, what am I going to do? Ask for my money back?”

. . . and I say. . .

Try doing that with Windows, or any other proprietary Windows Software product. You’ll get the same answer, “sorry.” When was the last time you read (really took the couple hours it takes) to read a EULA? There are no warranties that protect you or your data. At best, you might get an acknowledgment from the proprietary vendor that they know of the bug, and might fix it, or might not. With Open Source, chances are less than five minutes with Google, and 10 minutes on some forums and you’ll find others who has suffered the same fate and have already fixed it. In each case there is no way to get your money back. So what was the author’s point?

Later, the author asks the question:
“Do you buy the idea that being “open” makes software more secure, or automatically makes it “better” or somehow morally superior to closed source software?”

. . . and I say. . .

In the author’s own editorial, they never even approached real answers of security. The only thing they got into was how a proprietary kernel (MS) is closed source so no one can figure it out, while an open source kernel is open so everyone can peek, poke and monkey with it. Nobody can draw conclusions of security with such generalities. As for the MS kernel being more secure, BAH! When programs like most of Symantec’s products actually MODIFY the kernel, what kind of security is that? I’m in week number two of a WinXP rebuild because a Norton product failed it’s install in the middle of modifying the kernel. Talk about being screwed and having no warranties!

Next the author asks:
“Have you tried open source operating systems? Did you come back to Windows or do you still use Windows for some of your computers?”
Read the rest of this entry »

Last year, while going to work one day, I noticed a local hotel was hosting a Studebaker convention, of sorts.  I don’t know the details, I just know the parking lot was full of cars and trucks from almost all years of Studebakers.  While I spent some time walking through the parking lot, I found a few models and years that piqued my interest.  Later, I did some web searching and found the following years and models that I’d be interesting in owning:

• 1962 GT Hawk
• 1956 Sky Hawk
• 1953 Commander Starliner
• 1955 Speedster

Amazing enough, some of the early 50’s design, comes through in the later early 60’s design.  I can’t say for sure which model I really like best.  Of the four above, I could only pick a favorite if they were all parked next to each other.  I think the ’62 GT Hawk would probably be my first choice and then it would go down from there.

I’d want to of course drop a modern fuel-efficient, high horsepower V8 into it .  Maybe some interior upgrades for instrumentation, and a good coat of paint.  The thing that really turns me on about these, is that the bodylines and styling bring back memories of the early spy days, the James Bond, The Saint, and even Get Smart days.  And even most recently, in Pixar’s film The Incredibles, it harkens to the early car Mr. Incredible drives at the beginning of the movie.

I really think this could be a head turner, if I could only find one.

Asa Jay