Slashdot Mirror
Responses to ADTI Paper
Everyone and their brother has something to say about the silly and incoherent ADTI paper released yesterday. It doesn't even seem worth the effort to me - it's so internally inconsistent that I can't imagine it convincing anyone of anything. Nevertheless, David Skoll of Roaring Penguin has a good rebuttal, and Newsforge ? pointed out that the MITRE study that's been kicking around for so long is now public, and took a look at the differences between the two. Update: 06/11 18:43 GMT by M : Another rebuttal, by John Viega and Bob Fleck of Secure Software.
Was this really sponsored my Microsoft? Is there proof of that?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
So you mean to tell me that all the trouble we went through switching to Windows yesterday was for nothing?
really just a front for MS to push a political agenda around? i've never heard of ADTI (although i do know who Alexis DeTocqueville is) until now, and they don't seem to be a legitimate research organization.
really, if open source poses a threat to national security because of the availability of the source code, then we should also remove all books from libraries because of the same threat they pose to national security.
Me email iz skyewalkerluke at microsoft's free email service.
I don't know what you all are talking about. I thought it was very convincing.
And I'm a senator. My constituency trusts me to make decisions for them. Why else would Disney^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe people of South Carolina elect me?
Is how obviously biased the paper is - it's badly sourced, badly written, badly argued (there's holes in their arguments big enough to drive the proverbial truck through, like, "GNU doesn't let you steal source code for profit - the bastards!" - when proprietary licenses will throw you in jail for stealing source code), and so far, badly taken by anyone who knows anything about technology.
The counter argument (I read it on The Register this morning) is well written, well argued, has plenty of great sources, and except for the "Adapt or Die" bit repeated over and over again which showed his own bias (cool, but probably not the professional white paper people care about), it was a convincing argument.
So what was the point? If this "independant think tank" was paid for this research, whoever funded them should ask for a refund. If they did it to prove a point, someone should go back to "Presenting Important Arguments 101" and come back when they can present a logical, convincing argument.
All this appears to be is something a backpocket Sentator can wave and say "Look at this important research that proves why we need the GNU Illegal Code Act of 2003!". And sadly, most voters won't care because they don't know any better.
Then again, my 3 month old son doesn't know he shouldn't eat his hand. Same difference, I guess.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
How much do you think ADTI would charge to conduct another unbiased study that completely counters and argues against their original report?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Wired has an article from almost a week ago titled Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare.
Dave does good work. He has a weekly column at @monitor.ca That is full of good Linux information. The column can be reached directly at volXissY/lnxstuff.html
The government's productive alliance with private enterprise is also relevant particularly when its decision to use GPL source code would inherently turn away many of its traditional partners. Security, as well as other impracticalities make GPL open source very unattractive to companies concerned about intellectual property rights. In effect, the government's use of GPL source code could inevitably shut out the intellectual property based sector.
The Government must choose software to maximize national security and minimize government expenditure. It owes absolutely nothing to the "IP-based sector" or any other corporation. What was it I said before? Oh, yes: "Tough. Adapt or die."
It seems to me that many corporations are complaining about loosing their ability to make a profit. They expect the government to legislate things to help them. The author hints to this here but, let me add to it:
Running a business is a privilege granted by the people (business/vendor license). There are no rights, promises, or guarantees that running a business will earn any profit.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
OS, GPL, and Linux'll lose in the long term. Why? Because they play fair!
It doesn't matter that they are technically, practically and totally better than any alternative from M$ or any other company. The EFF simply does not have enough money to line the pockets of the next politician or lawyer that's against them.
In order to win, you'd have to be orders of magnitude better than any commercial alternative. In a fair fight, you'd win, but there ain't going to be any fair fight!
As long as anyone can get money from dubious practices, GPL will be ridiculed.
Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL? Nobody is forcing anybody to use it (to my knowledge,at least. Long-haired liberals may have kidnapped some CEOs and forced them to renounce Microsoft and all its pomps and works since I last checked, but I rather doubt it).
So I suppose it's only some kind of friendly warning to innocent users (as we all know that nobody ever reads licenses, uhh... wait a moment...). If it's so, well... thanks and all that. Nice from you to spend all those dollars in raising the public awareness of the problem. I think the point is already made, thanks, walk along, it's been a pleasure, we already know what we are doing, thanks, keep moving.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
While I agree with most of the rebuttal, there are a few points that the author's zealotry shows through just as badly as in the Micros.... I mean ADTI report. Example being this:
About the only thing that I find arguable about that small section of the ADTI report is the part about Open Source not working for a business model. First thing that David Skoll indicates is that he doesn't care about business models.
When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.
Oh well, at least this one wasn't a Microsoft front.
SUMMARY:
The rebuttal is factually (much) more accurate, but just as zealous as the ADTI report.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
IBM has a billion worth of marketing efforts put behind Linux.
Why dont they put forth some study on Open Source and GPL to counter these silly childish efforts be ADTI ?
I hate to say this, the Govt and the industry would definitely listen to Big Blue than a bunch of geeks.
Rapid Nirvana
The author of the Roaring Penguin rebuttal misses a point, one that's endlessly tossed around Slashdot. That Microsoft's (proprietary) TCP/IP stack is derived from the Berkeley stack is a good thing. As I understand things, the Berkeley stack is pretty much universal now because it was simply better than the closed versions. It's essentially the reference implementation of TCP/IP. And those programmers (not "thousands") who wrote it presumably meant for it to be used anywhere and everywhere.
This is the code the Internet is built on- it's a good thing it's under such a liberal license, and a good thing that Microsoft chose to use it. Certain things should not be GPL'd, and I think Microsoft has this right; open standards like this will never be fully accepted otherwise. A web browser, or a server, or an OS is an entirely different matter, though Microsoft doesn't seem to see this.
The FSF would of course disagree; they put ideology ahead of technology and have demonstrated that the "morality" of a project is more important than its success.
Interesting given that the US census population clock currently pegs US population at 289 Million.:-).
Seriously, having spoken extensively with the author of this study on the 'phone, he just doesn't follow a lot of the details at a level to coherently argue them with an informed audience.
Sure I can find bright folks on both sides of debates on oss/proprietary, full-disclosure/security-secrecy, win/unix/mac etc.
However ADTI's treatment may pass muster with folks who don't know the details and might have a similar set of economic / philosophic biases (e.g. capitalistic=successful=proprietary).
Anyhow 'Debates' are stoopid imo, debates with 'opponents' who lack enough clue to really participate are simply boring / frustrating.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Since no one seems to be discussing the MITRE paper, I guess I'll opin.
The MITRE paper takes a fair look at the business reasons for using OSS. By fair I mean that they don't simply extol the vertues of OSS, but look at the down sides as well. Yes there are some from the business viewpoint. They especially look at what makes it optimal for servers and the military. In the executive summary, they provide pretty pictures easily interpretable by pointy haired bosses every where as good hard data on why they should use OSS. I suggest that every one read at east the first 25 pages(the executive summary) while the business persons among us might gain something might get more details by reading the detailed business case portion of the pdf.
If the Manhattan Project had used Proprietary Physics, we wouldn't be so worried about terrorists building bombs to drop on us. Problem is, all these photons and atoms and stuff are Public Domain; anybody with a calculator and a few pounds of Plutonium can make use of the technology.
Refer to the chart on page 23. How is it that the BSD license is "GNU GPL compatible"?
Why does the author keep referring to the IP community and the "GPL community" as separate things? He even says that the GPL competes with US copyright law. This guy either has a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright or is a bald-faced liar. GPL'd software is IP as much as any proprietary software. GPL'd software uses copyright law as its basis, just as proprietary software does. The only issue here is the licensing terms. The only term that they take issue with is the fact that they can't simply steal the code and incorporate it into proprietary products because they would have to release the source to those products. That's their whole gripe.
They don't even consider the fact that most proprietary licenses are far more harsh than the GPL. In fact, you don't even have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. If you don't agree, then basic copyright law applies. If you do agree, then you get additional rights, over and above what traditional copyright law allows, albeit with some obligations as well. I think that any claim about the restrictiveness of the GPL license is disingenuous at best.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
At the moment there seems to be only a one-page PDF document at the original site explaining that the original paper has been recalled for some unspecified rework. Info regarding the sudden change of position can be found at linuxtoday.
The most interesting point was that when they contacted ADTI, a representative informed them that he was not sure why the paper was off-line, but he believed "they had to make a couple of revisions to the paper." The representative was not sure when the paper would be back online. The paper's author, Kenneth Brown, was
unavailable for comment.
Which reminds me, doesn't Microsoft distribute GPL'd software in one of its "migrate-to-Windows-from-Unix" packages?
Finding God in a Dog
When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.
I think you've got it wrong. He's not saying that everything must be open source. He's saying that open source and proprietary software should compete. He's rebutting the argument made by the report's author that the government should not use open source software. It's the proprietary vendors that are trying to make things 100% proprietary software here by discrediting open source.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You're a little off, here:
Proprietary = Sure, this is capitalism. Any system where the government doesn't interfere too much is capitalism (ie, making a profit). (I know, it's a simplification). BSD = Very little protection for original authors, ie a business can "steal" your code and profit from your work, without having to pay you. This might be good for business, but bad for individuals.
Again, this is capitalism.
GPL = You can use my code, but you if you release software, you have to release your source code, too. You're free to charge for the code if you want. This isn't communist at all, it's just a different business model.
The argument isn't neccesarily that it is pro-business, but that it isn't anti-business. There's nothing in the GPL that says you can't profit from a GPL application (ask Redhat!), it just makes sure that certain protections are in place.
GP
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Ok, now if you want to have any credibility at all, you must explain exactly how you believe that the GPL'd software community will self-destruct. Otherwise you're simply trolling.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you ever get the opportunity, try asking for a show of hands at a computer convention of any kind, for all the people who work writing off-the-shelf software. Last I heard, the number was typically well below 20%.
The rest work in a variety of areas, ranging from custom embedded systems (where the license of your code matters not one iota because the code can't be changed once the device is manufactured, and it's only useful to the one device anyway) to custom software such as web application development or "enterprise" business logic (where the license of the code matters not one iota because it's never released, and only useful to the one company anyway).
So at worst, if all off-the-shelf software were eliminated, the software industry would shrink by 20%.
More likely, companies with large software requirements (like needing 100,000 installations of an office suite) will channel some of the money they're not spending on licenses and employ some programmers to answer the question of "where do we get bugfixes from if there's no company to turn to?". Once you reach a certain size, employing a few full-time programmers is actually cheaper than paying the ludicrous license costs of OTS software these days. Or they could pay a company like Red Hat or IBM or Sun for "support" (ie, to employ some programmers to prioritize this set of bugs/features over all others).
You've said that "100% open source isn't truely viable" but not backed it up in any way. David Skoll at least backed his point of view up by pointing to great software produced entirely without business models being in the picture. Who is more credible, the one who makes a (admittedly lightweight) argument to back up his point of view, or the one who simply calls the other a zealot with no argument?
It's hard to argue against someone calling for "balance". But sometimes "balance" simply isn't necessary or desirable. Just ask the Catholic Church what kind of reception their "balanced" approach to sex abuse is getting. Sure, that's a reductio-ad-absurdum. But since your whole argument seems to be "balance is necessary!", it suffices to point out a single counterexample...
Stuart.
I would like to comment on this papers addressing of 'documentation' of open source versus proprietary software. I would like to point out that when I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, there was no documentation at all provided. I had to blindly figure out how to use the product, and eventually had to invest over $200 in outside books and materials (or alternatively I could have paid $1000 for training classes). I purchased Mandrake 8.2 and got a huge book of documentation. I also found online documentation for all of the packages included (apache, sendmail, php, etc.) that was absolutely free. I think open source documentation is some of the best in the world, with code examples and tutorials available all over the internet. Closed source software, by contrast, since it is proprietary, sports very few code examples or complete documentation. Try finding an active server pages version of PHP Nuke for example... Just my $.02. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for your letter; you're not the only person to comment on the lack of documentation for MS software. I was unaware of the documentation situation because I've never actually used MS software to any great extent. A few years back, I briefly (4 months) developed under Windows and became totally frustrated, not by the lack of documentation, but by the fact that a lot of it was inaccurate.
Regards,
David.
General Public License
From the license preamble:
Not everyone who uses the GPL have in mind RMS's software commons. Some use it as a business method, and strategically choose to release some GPL code and some proprietary code, or sell rights to use GPL code in a proprietary way. The argument, by Russell Nelson, was "When I write proprietary software I expect to get paid"; his company, Crynwr, follows this model, as does Aladdin, the company that brought you Ghostscript.
The BSD model is more communist than the GPL model. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", as Marx said. It is the BSD model that asks people to give away their work without restriction: with the GPL, it's a trade: I'll give you mine if you give me yours. I respect people who release their own work under BSD-like licensing (that's the license used for the largest free software project I was part of, Ptolemy), but I have no respect for those who demand that others use BSD-style licensing: these are just people who want a free lunch.
Wrong.
If write a program and distribute it under the GPL, I am free to re-license it in any way i choose since i own the copyright. I can't bring back the GPL versions but I can sell another version along side of it. No one else owns the GPLed version, but they are free to modify and distribute it under the terms of the GPL.
Unfortunately, the link provided now just points to some pictures of someone's kid.
There. That big fuzzy thing made of trees. That's a forest.
The pictures of someone's kid IS the easter egg. If a random employee can snarf web space off the corporate web server to post his baby pics, don't you think there's a wee little problem with their security/version control? It doesn't look like approved corporate content to me...
If "Image" was truly nothing, and "Thirst" the only thing that was really important would there be any point to Sprite making commercials at all?
Image might not be objective truth, but it is a first impression. And in the case of a bad first impressions, it's also a last impression. Right or wrong, that's the way the world works.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
The Roaring Penguin article was reprinted in full in The Age (Melbourne) and the Sydney Morning Herald today. Those IT sections are read by really quite a lot of people in IT in Australia.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I was quoted in the document as a "programming expert". Er, not exactly. My specialty is installation programs and configuration management. Yes, I code, but in the open source world, I'm not an important contributor. Also, in my email exchange with Mr. Brown, I pointed out that I was not an expert in the GPL, yet he specifically cites me about aspects of the GPL. That particular portion was quite possible my least favorite of everything I wrote because I neglected to mention you only need to publicly release your own source code if you publicly release the binaries. This is a glaring omission and I must apologize to the Open Source community for my own stupidity.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Note this statement in ADTI's supposed "Paper"
"A worse consideration is that use of GPL could inadvertently create legal problems. IP community members could argue that the government's choice of open source is restrictive and excludes taxpaying firms from taxpayer-funded projects. Adverse impact would include a discontinued flow of technology transfer from government-funded research to the technology sector. Without value, it becomes highly likely that government funding for research would slow as well. "
vs. this one in the letter in response to the Peruvian bill
"The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies, violating the base principles of the "Law of State Contracting and Aquisitions" (Number 26850)"
GPL's biggest obstacle is the terrible misconception posted here. The uninformed seem to believe that GPL'ed code is forever tainted by the license and nothing can ever be done with it. We see people saying this on every single /. article on the GPL. It's bullshit, but people in the know don't seem to be all that driven to refute it in big print. It's the basis of most attacks on GPL, and we're still doing doing enough to get the truth out. I mean, how can GPL prevent me from licensing my source to someone for profit, when GPL is something to applies towards others and not the author?
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
No, communism isn't "You have to share your toys".
It's everyone has to have a job and everyone gets paid the same. It's also about ensuring nobody has any more than anyone else.
Its absurd to think that forcing people to work a difficult job to get paid the same as working an easy job is anything at all like the GPL license.
You aren't forced to use the GPL license, and, more importantly, if you do choose to use GPL software, you aren't forced to accept the license, and, even more important, if you do choose to accept the license, it doesn't force you to give any of your other software away that you might own (every heard of what happened to people that owned too much stuff during the communist days? gulag.).
Saying GPL is communism is like saying the public health care system of most 1st world countries is communist because everyone gets equal treatment.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I tried not to make personal attacks, but the AdTI paper is so blatant that I don't see any harm in showing exactly what I think of it now and then. There are well-written non-personal defenses of free software (like Villaneuva's); it's just not my style to hold back.
Dark Nexus writes: About the only thing that I find arguable about that small section of the ADTI report is the part about Open Source not working for a business model. First thing that David Skoll indicates is that he doesn't care about business models.
Perhaps I should have reworded that. What I mean is, I don't care about the GPL in relation to existing, proprietary software business models. And it's not my job to explain to people how to make money from GPL'd software. GPL'd software is out there, and we'd all better learn to adapt.
The gnat writes: This is the code the Internet is built on- it's a good thing it's under such a liberal license, and a good thing that Microsoft chose to use it.
I have no problem with BSD license advocates. But I choose GPL, the AdTI paper attacked the GPL, and it was the GPL I was defending. If people want to use BSD licenses or proprietary licenses, that's fine. All I'm saying is they'd better learn to live with GPL'd software, because it will be out there. It's changing the game.
Anarchos writes: It's interesting to note that Roaring Penguin's own CanIt license [roaringpenguin.com] is considerably more restrictve than the GPL, despite the article's "Tough. Adapt or die" refrain for proprietary licensing.
Yes, the secret's out: I sell non-free software. I'm experimenting with business models, and one that I'm trying is to sell non-free software value-added on top of free software. I gradually migrate the non-free portions to the free parts. That's what paid for the RADIUS support I added to pppd in the Linux PPP CVS. That's what paid for MIMEDefang (the free software which underpins CanIt.)
I'm not a total free software zealot. I believe there always will be proprietary software, and it will always have a niche. But it has to coexist with free software, and CanIt is my experiment with coexistence.
--
David F. Skoll
Its seems like the intended audience for his counter rant was pretty much the slashdot crowd itself (the proverbial "choir")
Any version of it to be sent to an "outsider" would probably have to be cleaned up, or in other words boring-erized.
Its very difficult to write a logically strong argument that is both business/professinal as well as interesting/readable. (The recent writings of peruvian congressmen qualify as both)
It would be preferable to me if the rigid business types were a little more forgiving of humor, and accepting of unproven yet obvious anecdotes (such as the fact the ADTI is a blatant shill).
...is spinning in his grave.
Or perhaps not. After all, he did predict that the Republic would last until the masses realized they could vote themselves bread and circuses.
To that, I'll add "Or Microsoft can buy FUD in his name."
668: Neighbour of the Beast
You mean that it is a good thing that there was a berkeley stack for MS to use, otherwise we would all have ended up using some MS/proprietary networking stack. Were that the case, then it is good because we have open standard interoperable TCP/IP networking.
However, you failed to consider the possibility that MS o/sen would have been a little less dominant if they did not have a tcp stack to acquire. Perhaps we would be using other operating systems while microsoft scrambled to come up with an alternative to a hypothetical GPL'd tcp stack.
Whole operating systems could be interoperable then... perhaps having less market share would encourage MS to be even more standards compliant yet(to compete). Would that not be an even better? Is it inconceivable to entertain the possibility?
What are the consequences of contributing to a project that comes under fire for patent or copyright infringement? Aren't the major contributors of BNETD kind of going through that now?
If I am a large corporation and I adopt some GPL software for my business and later someone finds that some code in that project was obtained without authorization and now the owner of that code is looking for blood and sees that I have quite a bit of it to give don't I put myself at risk? I may not have been responsible for inserting that code into the project, it could have happened before I joined the project but I improved on it and helped distribute it on my company's website. That could really screw up my business by costing me time and money. Forget backdoors and trojans. I think the real potential enemy of free software is stolen code.
I have a prediction for the future. At some point we will see some proprietary code slip into a free software project and really challenge the system. If I were Ximian I would be very mindful of what people are submitting to the Mono project.
'Same speed C but faster'
You have the analogy wrong, because toys are finite in number, whereas software is near infinitely reproducible. Here is a more accurate analogy, though still flawed:
Proprietary: I have one million slinkies. I'll let you play with one slinky if you pay me. If you don't pay me I will take you to court.
GPL: I have one million rubber balls. If you play with any of my balls I get to play with yours. If you don't let me play with your balls I will take you to court.
BSD: I have one million kazoos. I don't need one million kazoos. Here, take one.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Their assumption is correct if they are trying to make money off of the software. The GPL makes it very hard to do this. Very hard. It's damned difficult to get someone to pay you for what they can download for free. They could make money, on the other hand, bmaking the software a loss leader for their real product, such as support, hardware, etc.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The hedge fund, though, isn't involved with high-tech; it invests mostly in third-world countries.
This would be a good point if Microsoft hadn't used illegal actions to gain that market share.
Except that I *can't* use GPL for just *anything* that I write.
*IF* I want to use a GPL sort routine in my database app, I must release the source to my app. If I release the source code, there is a significant percentage of people that will not pay to use my app.
GPL is anti-business for any business that makes money from selling software.
The transition to selling support dosen't work - that either results in hard to use/expensive to maintain software or in the developer going out of business.
Take a look at PKzip - we all used it, only 1% of us licensed it, the author was miserable when he died - we should all be ashamed - my understanding of GPL is that it forces this on anyone who dips from the GPL pool.
Re: Your comment on how GPL is better than BSD: So, you give your code away, but only to people who won't profit from it? Dosen't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy without actually doing anything to help others?
Perhaps this is true. If it is, then you'll just have to make do without using any GPL software in your product.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Why would the BBB give a rat's ass? They get their paychecks from big businesses. They exist simply to run interference and make it difficult for the consumer to resolve a problem. They hope to wear the people down until they simply give up. That's the sole purpose of the BBB.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I happen to work for a government contractor, so I've seen the kinds of requirements they have. Sure, a single programmer probably wouldn't want to bother. But when you've got a team of programmers, testers, documenters, etc, like Linux and other major open soure projects have, you certainly can meet the government's requirements. Probably even exceed them in many cases. If the government was smart, they would require a lot more openness in their software. Open file formats and protocols should be considered a bare minimum. Many of the people working on these projects are getting paid for it because the projects have value to many companies that wish to make use of them. Many more get paid to extend or support the software for private companies. Some do it for fun. Others do it for pay. A few do it for both. Who cares why they do it? It's obviously being done.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
IE took your market share? Adapt or die!
I believe they did.
Australian? Join EFA
Turn it around. A developer gets a job at Microsoft and slips in some code from Mono. After .NET gains lots of users, they let the hammer fall. Microsoft now has to GPL all of .NET. The risks are the same. GPL is just another license, and its conditions must be followed just as completely as those of a proprietary license.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Considering the US doesnt even HAVE 319 million people... :P
...you should switch back now (please mirror this under the FDL) blow by blow.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Throw the rebuttal URLs at every journo and talkback you can find. And the MITRE study in particular, it has immense credibility.
And don't forget mine, either! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I can make an infinite number of balls. You can play with one provided that you are also willing to clone and hand it on. If you nail my balls to something you own, you must do the same with the entire object. Putting my balls in a ziplock bag with other people's balls is philosophically safe, I won't speak to the health issues.
Still deficient, because it makes no distinction between source and binary, but better.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I do appreciate the lack of hidden agendae. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The header reflects their mod of Apache. AdTI probably have no clue what powers their site. I base this conclusion on their fairly complete lack of a clue in any other technical area.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Since everything technical on the site (except for the actual hosting) sings rapt praises of Microsoft, it's pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that MS don't so much sponsor as own AdTI.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing