In article <1162001913.479192.275220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The part where you insert "hardware" which doesn't exist in the original
> > article? Nor in the sentence fragment you quote above.
>
> The article states they are replacing faulty motherboards. Last time I
> checked "motherboards" were hardware. Nowhere does the article even
> remotely imply Roy's statement of "Sounds like Windows' handling of
> motherboard interrupts."
The article doesn't even mention Windows, and since it does mention that
the votes were counted, it sounds like it was just a screen freeze. In
this kind of system, the interface is almost always a single application
running full screen, so a single application locking up will show up as
a "screen freeze".
Looking at the population of the four counties in which they replaced
hardware, it works out to one machine fixed per 400 people. It seems
likely that this means they had to fix ALL the machines in those
counties.
So, it looks like this story has nothing to do with Linux advocacy--it
is just pure FUD about Windows (not the story at Yahoo--the way it was
presented here). Even if Diebold switched to SELinux, no sane person
would want to vote on their machines.
(This kind of FUD is particularly dangerous. If the FUDsters succeed in
making people think Diebold's application bugs and poor physical
security are Window's fault, then if the heat gets too high on Diebold,
they can just switch to Linux, and people will think they must be then
be OK, and it will take us another several years to get rid of those
machines).
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
