vista sucks

[GrannyGeek]

We have to upgrade our hardware if we want to run vista, but nobody is saying, "oh, my system is not using all his power, lets try vista on it." The question is, what is vista doing better than others (including XP), what do you get after the upgrade of the hardware and the new license?

That's assuming someone whose hardware isn't up to it longs for Vista, and so goes out and spends the money *solely* in order to get Vista. That's not what people do--at least not sensible people. We don't upgrade hardware or get a new computer just to run a new OS. We get a new OS when we get a new computer. I can't think of any mature user who bought a new computer solely to run a new OS. I'm sure there are some. Some people have a psychological need to be first with the latest. But a rational approach says you buy a new computer when your old one no longer meets your needs.

I've been told by people qualified to pass judgment that Vista has some significant internal improvements that are not obvious to users. From the user standpoint, I don't think Vista offers much that is worth a deliberate upgrade unless you long for eye candy. I do think the desktop looks better, but it's not something I'd get a new computer for. I've turned off the Aero features because I didn't like them--transparency, live taskbar thumbnails, Flip and Flip-3D. I don't like similar things in Compiz-Fusion either.

us$ 1000 for surfing the web?

Huh? The everyday price for the full version of Vista Ultimate (the most expensive) is $400 US. The upgrade price for Vista Ultimate is $260. And why would someone get Ultimate unless they needed both the home and business features? For the more reasonable Vista Home Premium, the version of choice for most users, the price is $240 for a non-upgrade copy and $160 for the upgrade version.

Vista has nothing new! Just the interface. The new resources are wasted just in the desktop, the wallpaper, the clock, the weather applet, etc.

The Sidebar is completely optional, so if someone doesn't want to use resources on it, you just turn it off. I know people who absolutely love those Sidebar gadgets. I have Sidebar turned off. Vista does have new applications included: a decent photo organizer and simple editor, a good calendar program, Media Center apps for using a computer TV tuner like a Tivo, Movie Maker and DVD Maker, etc.

Consider the money spent in the hole world in new hardware, consider the money spent in new licenses, the resources taken from the nature, the extra power this hard needs, there is a lot of things to think about. And a lot of factors are working here.

But that's assuming people are buying new computers just to get a new OS. They're not. They get a new computer because they want something better than their old computer. The "new license" thing is a delusion. The cost of a Windows license is much less for a major computer manufacturer than it is for someone buying a copy at a store. And due to price competition, the cost of the license disappears. You'll rarely see a computer with Linux or no operating system for a lower price than the same computer with Windows. Generally, I find these Linux computers to be overpriced compared to mass-market Windows computers with the same specs. One of my cyber friends who is shopping for a new laptop and wanted a Linux-only machine has found that what I just said is true--and he was surprised.

Of course, we want to see Linux to increase its market share, but we want to change linux to certain point only to reach that goal. How much linux should change and what not is not a clear subject.

I agree that Linux should not become just another Windows or Mac OS. What it *should* become is not so clear. I think we're headed in the right direction. I don't think Linux will ever become the dominant desktop operating system, but there's a lot of room for growth.

I think we have a rare--and brief--window of opportunity with the ASUS eee ultralight laptop and the Everex $200 PC at Walmart. These computers have the potential to introduce Linux to the mass market and people will see for themselves that Linux can be easy to use and can do everything the average user wants a computer to do. The opportunity may be brief because Windows XP is being adapted for the eee. There already are comparable PCs with Windows available at Walmart. Since people tend to go with what they know, we can expect that these computers with Windows on them may become more popular than the Linux machines. *WE* know that Linux will be a much better performer on limited hardware like this, but would an average buyer know that? And would they prefer performance over familiarity? So this will be very interesting to watch.

I want to make clear that I'm not beating the drum for Vista. I don't see any reason to upgrade XP on either of my desktops, even if Vista were free. But if I'm buying a new computer, I'd go with Vista rather than XP because it's the future, it has more potential, and it's usable right now.
--GrannyGeek

[saulgoode]

We have to upgrade our hardware if we want to run vista, but nobody is saying, "oh, my system is not using all his power, lets try vista on it." The question is, what is vista doing better than others (including XP), what do you get after the upgrade of the hardware and the new license?

That's assuming someone whose hardware isn't up to it longs for Vista, and so goes out and spends the money *solely* in order to get Vista. That's not what people do--at least not sensible people. We don't upgrade hardware or get a new computer just to run a new OS. We get a new OS when we get a new computer. I can't think of any mature user who bought a new computer solely to run a new OS. I'm sure there are some. Some people have a psychological need to be first with the latest. But a rational approach says you buy a new computer when your old one no longer meets your needs.

All of the people I know who bought Vista did so because it was, or was expected to become, necessary to support their jobs (quite rational). All of them decided to buy new hardware to support their new OS -- perhaps in some cases this was a "choice", but most needed to purchase $1000 computers in order to support Vista's demands.

You'll rarely see a computer with Linux or no operating system for a lower price than the same computer with Windows. Generally, I find these Linux computers to be overpriced compared to mass-market Windows computers with the same specs. One of my cyber friends who is shopping for a new laptop and wanted a Linux-only machine has found that what I just said is true--and he was surprised.

Perhaps you could cite an example, every time I have compared a Linux or no-OS offering from a vendor to the same machine with Windows, the Windows machine is more expensive; though the difference is not the full retail price of Windows. The only exception I've seen is when a vendor offered a RAM rebate on their Windows machines and failed to offer the same for their Linux boxen (this was corrected after it was pointed out).

[Joe1962]

Who says most people are rational?   

Hardware manufacturers know this and they ramp up production of higher-end hardware (higher than normal for a given moment) when a new Windows version is due. They actually took a lot of losses this time around because Vista was delayed more than usual (even for MS) and they had all that expensive stock lying around.

A not quite OS related example (though it caused an OS upgrade too), but relevant to the rationality issue: I've seen research institutes that had to upgrade their hardware a whole generation or two (without prior warning or previous budget adjustments) because the corresponding ministry switched to a fresh version of Excel and suddenly started sending the forms that needed to be filled in for the monthly reports in the format of that incompatible new version. Of course, that newer version of Excel wouldn't run on their current OS, let alone their hardware.

[rbistolfi]

The "rationality" is a good topic around this. There is a funny thing, "irrational" seems to be always the buyer, but never the seller. I guess the cause is not just the seller "good luck".

Huh? The everyday price for the full version of Vista Ultimate (the most expensive) is $400 US. The upgrade price for Vista Ultimate is $260. And why would someone get Ultimate unless they needed both the home and business features? For the more reasonable Vista Home Premium, the version of choice for most users, the price is $240 for a non-upgrade copy and $160 for the upgrade version.

I was thinking in a new laptop, hard and soft included.

The Sidebar is completely optional, so if someone doesn't want to use resources on it, you just turn it off. I know people who absolutely love those Sidebar gadgets. I have Sidebar turned off. Vista does have new applications included: a decent photo organizer and simple editor, a good calendar program, Media Center apps for using a computer TV tuner like a Tivo, Movie Maker and DVD Maker, etc.

Well, that kind of stuff are just the same, imo. There is no real use there. The world will be exactly the same after Tivo. Is cool, and I could like the sidebar, but I am sure I can survive without it. I want to see a computer doing something accord to the extraordinary hardware we have now. The hard is extraordinary, the soft is ordinary. As Con Kolivas pointed in an interview quoted in some thread, the Linux Desktop has a fault there too.
I think I give this example before. Take a Lotus version running on dos, and Excel, or the OO equivalent for that matter, and there is no substantial improvement. For the gamers, the first version of Quake run with 16mb of ram. We can have 4gigs now, and the first one is quite similar to the 4th edition. Ok, the blood looks better now  . But my point is, there is nothing new since years, and there is no proportional improvement between hard and soft. If you disable the sidebar in Vista, you get the same.
Perhaps there is improvements in the core, we'll never know it, perhaps if they release it with a "shared source license".
In the public, research (which is the same as public here) and enterprise area (an important percentage) the new license is a factor. And the hardware upgrade means a ton of money. we could use all that money for something useful. We have to see the big picture. The new world is global, for the good things and for the problems too.

I want to point something else, Linux can be interpreted as a realization of a science ideal, about sharing knowledge, mutual collaboration, seek of improvements, etc. MS is trying to hide any good thing they could make (and I am sure they really can do good stuff). I am sure Bill will be bored of all that money, and perhaps could share or spend it in something really funny, adventurous, exiting and useful.
We could work less, and have more fun, we could really improve our efficiency, our use of resources; with Linux or Windows, if Bill wants to be "cooperative" instead "destructive". We need a lot of research and we need to support the logistic area, we all know computers can help in a lot of levels of  our work, administration, and any order of our lives. How they can is not very clear, and we are very far of having a plan in that direction. I guess this is not about Linux or Windows any more, but about the modern way of life. Though, my idea about Linux and MS has no sense without pointing this.

I want to make clear that I'm not beating the drum for Vista. I don't see any reason to upgrade XP on either of my desktops, even if Vista were free. But if I'm buying a new computer, I'd go with Vista rather than XP because it's the future, it has more potential, and it's usable right now.

I know you ideas from other threads, it was clear to me.

[exeterdad]

That's assuming someone whose hardware isn't up to it longs for Vista, and so goes out and spends the money *solely* in order to get Vista. That's not what people do--at least not sensible people. We don't upgrade hardware or get a new computer just to run a new OS.

I have to say plenty of "sensible" people need to go out and buy new computers just to run the Vista.

My wifes father is a police chief of a smaller town in our state.  The software that is on all his computers in the station and cars is linked to the state, and a good chunk of the nation.  The supplier of the software is naturally upgrading, and for some reason Vista will be required. The state is following, in turn all the police stations need to upgrade as well if they want to be "connected".  First off, the license fees for the software (and all the needed "modules") is crazy.  Now he has to find in his meager budget, how to pay for 100% hardware replacement because his reasonably modern hardware isn't capable of running Vista.  We're not talking "Acer" laptops here.  We're talking about laptops (for the cars) that you can toss out the window and pick them up and keep on chugging.  He gave me a dollar amount a few months back.  I can't remember what it was, but I know it was sick.  Especially considering the small size of his department.

Changing the subject a bit, and referring to the benchmarks posted earlier.  Since the hardware manufactures are racing to build hardware that can run Vista while noticeably increasing the performance.  We Linux users, especially us can only gain.  We don't need the super hardware to be productive.  So our system will fly like it's never flown before. 

Not to mention that prices have to be kept down on the new stuff to be accepted, and much of the now obsolete, bargin bin hardware is being liquidated.  Hardware I couldn't justify buying in the past, and would LOVE to be running VL on.

It's nice to be a VectorLinuxian. Life is good.

[metvas]

Being a SoHo addict, here is a thought I can load up SoHo and with the base installation have everything other than my printer running with no command lines. The mainstream user wants just that. Net, email, printing +/- 90% of user function for a home use box.
So the use of command lines is NOT require for a base install on a single box even if behind a router.
Lets go back to why VL even exists. In the beginning VL v1.5 to v1.8 where all that existed and was targeted specifically at older machines, (that is old). It was not until v2.5 that Pentium was even supported 2001/2002. So our focus and goal was older hardware from the get go. We still have v1.8 for download and it is downloaded on a regular basis.

What do I think of Vista or Dual core? Not much for the average user it is like a V8 engine in a Volkswagen a waste of energy, resources and will contribute to world landfills in a huge way. That is where we (VL) come in. And why I have been pushing the Greening of VL as a Distro. We are Green we do retask older machines. We do save them from landfills. It is a “choice”, if you live outside the 3rd World only, but NOT if you live within it. Therein lies my problem my dilemma and huge dislike of M$, Vista and Intel/AMD. Along with all the other pigs withholding their drivers from open source.

To see this as nothing but cash grab by all the pigs at the trough would be fooling yourself considerably. Consider Red Hat I heard from a convention participant that Red Hat was pushing proprietary Apps at that convention and did not once focus on Open Source!!
Red Hat as you all know got their capital funds through Open Source…Novell what is that all about ??
So the end result of all this is we (Westerners) have a choice. Others do not. I feel a line has to be respected. Serve those who depend on Open Source for access to knowledge but not exclude VL from expanding into commercial enterprises. A very fine line for sure, but with some well thought out avenues proving to be very possible, without the compromise of our obligations to Open Source. Will I buy Vista, absolutely never. Will I assist others to install VL without command line, yes. Will I assist others to use command line, yes only if the want to. Will I advise others to use Vista, yes if they are convinced they should/must, to try too change their minds is foolish. As rbistolfi and joe1962 pointed out “ That would be prejudices...”
Regards
Darrell

[GrannyGeek]

When I talk about upgrades, I have the home user in mind. When it's a company or police network, that's an IT decision and individual users don't have a choice. Actually, enterprises have been slow to move to Vista, just as they've been slow to move to any new MS or Macintosh operating system. It's too expensive, as the new OS nearly always requires better hardware than the old OS, software may have to be upgraded or replaced, and there are personnel issues as well (retraining users and facing the unhappiness that always accompanies any change in "the way we've always done it").

Certainly, many people can't afford to replace computers and it's important for them to have an affordable way to be connected to the rest of the world. It's a good niche for Linux. By all accounts, piracy is rampant in many parts of the world and what happens is that people get a cheap Linux computer, remove Linux, and put some version of Windows on it--not a legal copy and certainly free or very cheap. Linux offers people a way to be legal and not use pirated software. But you have to convince them that they want to use it and not Windows and Windows software, and therein lies the rub.

I have a cyber friend who refurbs discarded computers and installs Linux on them. He sets it up to be easy to use. He sells the computers for a low price and gives the potential buyer a trial period (two months, I think). If they like the computer, they pay him the low price. If they're not happy with it, they return it and he refunds the deposit. His hope was not only to provide a low-cost way to acquire a computer but also to give exposure to user-friendly Linux. That's his hope. In practice, though, he says that most of the people who buy the computer remove Linux and put Windows on it. I know we have people on this board who have the opposite experience, but I wonder how closely and how long you follow up on what happens ultimately to the computers you've refurbed. I've found it extremely difficult to convince the computer users I know to give Linux a try. Believe me, I try without going to the point of obnoxiousness.

The idea that getting a new computer in order to run more powerful software means the old computer goes to the dump is false. I've never thrown a computer away. I've always passed it down the family food chain to someone who doesn't have a computer or have given it to a nonprofit organization that needs a computer. If something no longer works, only then does it get discarded--and not to the landfill, to computer recycling. It is illegal where I live to discard things with circuit boards or that contain hazardous materials, which is just about everything in a computer. So it goes to computer recycling. We're in the process of getting together a big pile of computer stuff that no longer works and can't be repaired, or is so old that nobody wants it (as in a 2400 modem, 486 VL-bus motherboard that is huge and wouldn't fit into any case today, a broken monitor, a couple of 200-meg hard drives, two ancient laptops that don't work due to motherboard failures, and stuff of that nature). We have to *pay* for recycling, by the way. But it's the law that you can't just throw these things in the trash.

rbistolfi wrote:
>> I want to point something else, Linux can be interpreted as a realization of a science ideal, about sharing knowledge, mutual collaboration, seek of improvements, etc. MS is trying to hide any good thing they could make (and I am sure they really can do good stuff). >>

Well, here we get into Free Software ideology and I'm not a Free Software ideologue. I know many people on this board are, but I'm sure I'm not alone. I think Open Source is a good way to develop software and when it's free of charge, who doesn't like that? However, I'm willing to pay for good software if it meets my needs better than a free program that does similar things. Why blame Microsoft for following the same business model that has prevailed since before Linux was a gleam in Linus Torvalds's eye? Other companies do the same thing: Apple, Adobe, IBM, others too numerous to mention. As Apple a monopolist with regard to the iPod? Is Apple evil for dropping legacy support as new versions of the Mac OS have come out? In fact, Microsoft has been roundly criticized by many computer experts for including legacy support in new versions of its OSes. It's not until 64-bit versions of Windows that support for 16-bit applications has been dropped. My 1994 16-bit word processor and little 1993 database program and early '90s DOS Correct Quotes are all working under 32-bit Vista. What about Google? Is it poised to take over the world from Microsoft? What about RedHat and Novell, which charge a large bundle for technical support for their enterprise Linux versions?

Like it or not, greed is a large motivating factor in business. It certainly is both remarkable and admirable that so much Linux development is done by unpaid volunteers. That's one of the aspects of Linux that makes it both satisfying and fun to use. However, there is a down side to this model, too. Many very promising projects are abandoned because their developers run out of time, lose interest, or need to earn a better living from their labors. Projects like the Gimp and Scribus would be much farther along if they had enough full-time (and therefore paid) developers working on them instead of a few people working in their evening and weekend free time. This would definitely apply to Scribus, a program I follow quite closely and occasionally use. The reason I use it "occasionally" instead of "often" is that there are severe deficiencies in text handling that are on the roadmap to be rectified, but my, it takes a long time! I've been using Scribus for at least two years and this would-be professional level DTP program still does not have proper hyphenation and justification controls. They'll come in a future version--in how many years?

>> I am sure Bill will be bored of all that money, and perhaps could share or spend it in something really funny, adventurous, exiting and useful. >>

Well, Bill gives away multimillions for education, AIDS research, and childhood immunizations in the developing world. I'd say he shares it and spends it not on something funny, but on vital needs that benefit millions of very poor people. I wish more billionaires did the same.
--GrannyGeek

[bigpaws]

quote]I know we have people on this board who have the opposite experience, but I wonder how closely and how long you follow up on what happens ultimately to the computers you've refurbed.[/quote]

All of the machines that I have placed in service still have Linux. The first machine still
has Vector running fine for the past three years.

The reason that none of my linux machines get replaced by Windows is due to the
fact that I match the OS to the person. I spend more time with my clients to learn the
5 W's (my age is showing) and go from there.

Well, here we get into Free Software ideology and I'm not a Free Software ideologue

This is not a ideology. It is a system that works and has for centuries. Science shares information,
it does not horde it. The embrace to a new idea, thought or process has to be proven. In IT this
same information (any knowledge) is to be horded, branded and not allowed to be used. So when
a problem is solved by a previous problem and is a step in new problem the original work can not
be used. This is not a good process.

Well, Bill gives away multimillions for education, AIDS research, and childhood immunizations in the developing world. I'd say he shares it and spends it not on something funny, but on vital needs that benefit millions of very poor people. I wish more billionaires did the same.

.

IIRC Melinda started that not Bill.

My support for the home user having Vista and Office 2007 require more time to teach the "new"
interface. CTL+P does not print in Vista, Office 2007 has a total change in navigation. It is bad
when these users have to ask how to print when they have been using Office for years. Changing
an interface is not always good.

Bigpaws

[GrannyGeek]

>> CTL+P does not print in Vista >>

It does in mine. Has it changed in Office? I don't use Office. For everything else I use, control-P prints as it always has.

>> IIRC Melinda started that not Bill. >>

It's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill provides the money. Melinda has worked fulltime with the Foundation, but Bill is also active and that's what he's going to do when he's out of Microsoft in a year. I know it sticks in the craw of Linuxians to give Bill some credit, but in this I think he deserves it.

>> This is not a ideology. It is a system that works and has for centuries. Science shares information, it does not horde it. The embrace to a new idea, thought or process has to be proven. In IT this same information (any knowledge) is to be horded, branded and not allowed to be used. So when a problem is solved by a previous problem and is a step in new problem the original work can not be used. This is not a good process. >>

Equating IT to science is an ideological stance. Inventions of various sorts have been and are patented. Copyright is guaranteed in the US Constitution and is part of a worldwide agreement (Berne Convention). So just because a group of people decide IT should be shared does not make it so.
--GrannyGeek

[bigpaws]

Copyright is guaranteed in the US Constitution

I missed that one, can you highlight it for me?

Bigpaws

[rbistolfi]

Well, here we get into Free Software ideology and I'm not a Free Software ideologue. I know many people on this board are, but I'm sure I'm not alone. I think Open Source is a good way to develop software and when it's free of charge, who doesn't like that? However, I'm willing to pay for good software if it meets my needs better than a free program that does similar things. Why blame Microsoft for following the same business model that has prevailed since before Linux was a gleam in Linus Torvalds's eye? Other companies do the same thing: Apple, Adobe, IBM, others too numerous to mention. As Apple a monopolist with regard to the iPod? Is Apple evil for dropping legacy support as new versions of the Mac OS have come out? In fact, Microsoft has been roundly criticized by many computer experts for including legacy support in new versions of its OSes. It's not until 64-bit versions of Windows that support for 16-bit applications has been dropped. My 1994 16-bit word processor and little 1993 database program and early '90s DOS Correct Quotes are all working under 32-bit Vista. What about Google? Is it poised to take over the world from Microsoft? What about RedHat and Novell, which charge a large bundle for technical support for their enterprise Linux versions?

Granny, I never said a word about money. I hope linux companies and VL could make some money, not only to survive, I hope they can get something back and enjoy some, how say it, a comfortable life. About the other companies, perhaps the answer is yes, perhaps no. I think no company has a so strong attitude in order to build a monopoly. I think Google needs to be discussed too. I think a consortium has to manage the results of web searches, because a private interest can influence in the results order, which is as we know, crucial. I don't care about ipod, if I want to hear good music, I take my guitar . But internet is starting to be very important in the way we are related to the culture, information, knowledge, art, etc. So, we have to study if a monopoly can hold and control that kind of stuff.
Perhaps is free software ideology. I think that word, "ideology" sounds a little wrong today, but let focus on our subject. I have no problem with that, my main critic with MS is not it is closed software. The model of distribution and the license, the business strategy, the hole business model, are sometimes, aggressive with the members of this world. It avoid entires countries to access technology, which is crucial, almost a serious crime. I already told about the importance of not wasting resources.
As bigpaws mentioned, the way we handle knowledge today, and the way it is related to the technology production is a very new thing in relative terms. The idea of IP could be sound absurd in other age. This is very much older than free software.
So, I want people  paying for Linux, what I do not want is one company dominating any area in the hole world.

he says that most of the people who buy the computer remove Linux and put Windows on it.

I have no doubt about that. We are discussing now the cause of that.

Well, Bill gives away multimillions for education, AIDS research, and childhood immunizations in the developing world. I'd say he shares it and spends it not on something funny, but on vital needs that benefit millions of very poor people. I wish more billionaires did the same.

Well, thats ok, but the origin of the AIDS problem is poverty, and the problem is endemic, it expands in a geometrical way, and Bill's donations are linear. MS model contribute to generate that problem.
What I mean with fun and adventure, is this: ms is not contributing with anything to the history of computing. Their stuff are more from the same, they are avoiding risk, the take secure shots, they don't support innovative ideas.

I know it sticks in the craw of Linuxians to give Bill some credit, but in this I think he deserves it.

No, he doesn't. The charity thing has no value by itself. If we don't attack the main problem has no value at all. And as I said, MS model is not helping.

Equating IT to science is an ideological stance. Inventions of various sorts have been and are patented. Copyright is guaranteed in the US Constitution and is part of a worldwide agreement (Berne Convention). So just because a group of people decide IT should be shared does not make it so.

No is not. Computers are deeply related to the actual science. They can help in a lot of problems and MS model is just putting rocks in the way. I don't live in USA, and the patents system is a joke. The original intention was to protect scientist, was not to provide a tool for monopolize the tech world. The Berne Convention has no value in the hole world and legal doesn't mean right. Laws can be changed.

[GrannyGeek]

I missed that one, can you highlight it for me?

Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

[bigpaws]

Thanks

But isn't the discussion more of patent?

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

Bigpaws

[rbistolfi]

I missed that one, can you highlight it for me?

Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Well, the argument here is MS is not promoting the Progress of Science.

[GrannyGeek]

the origin of the AIDS problem is poverty, and the problem is endemic, it expands in a geometrical way, and Bill's donations are linear. MS model contribute to generate that problem.

Whoa! AIDS afflicts both rich and poor. Social status and money don't protect anyone. Of course, impoverished people have no access to medical care and the medicines that can extend their lives, and there are millions of orphans left by parents who died of AIDS. So it's not just a problem of poverty, but poverty makes everything much worse.

The charity thing has no value by itself. If we don't attack the main problem has no value at all.

Tell that to someone who has access to medicine because of the Gates Foundation. I have a cousin who is involved in college education opportunities for poor people in rural areas, particularly Native Americans. She and her husband have a proven model for making higher education possible for these people who otherwise could never have access to it. They needed funding because the state either wasn't interested or couldn't afford it. The Gates Foundation came through for them and as a result, many young people were able to continue their educations who otherwise could not have. The Gates Foundation does not just give money away. They look for plans that involve people of the area and that can continue past the initial funding.

I don't live in USA, and the patents system is a joke.

That's pretty much universally acknowledged. Microsoft is among the companies that want the system to change. What we have now is a constant string of lawsuits. A company can't just refuse to play the game because they're all caught in the system. The law needs to be changed. Patents won't disappear, however.

The Berne Convention has no value in the hole world and legal doesn't mean right. Laws can be changed.

The Berne Convention has over 160 signatories, including Argentina. In addition, over 140 member countries of the World Trade Organization are bound by the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Argentina is a member of the WTO.

Of course "legal" doesn't mean "right," but since people disagree about what is right, law determines what can be done without adverse consequences, such as fines and prison. Yes, laws can be changed, but until they are, we must obey the laws we have or face the consequences. Consensus is required before a law is changed, and I don't think we are near consensus on issues of copyright and patents.
--GrannyGeek