NNTP. That's right, turn/. discussions into newsgroups and spread them as far as possible. Each story gets it's own thread.
Yes, it'll be messy. You'll probably have to add your own non-compliant headers to maintain the level of threading and moderation you have here, but if the messages are no longer centralized nasty parties will have a harder time making a case for you being responsible for 'em.
. Most of the code to date has been written by Geeks for Geeks. This was fine until the Open Source community started pushing Open Source as THE WAY to publish software.
I disagree, when joe user sends email it traveses through a web of open source products, like Sendmail. When joe user checks out his baseball scores he's probably using Apache without even knowing it. When joe user connects to his ISP chances are pretty good they're running a great deal of open source software.
Just because it's not on his desktop and in his face doesn't mean it's not written for him. The most successful and popular open source tools are those that OPEN resources like email and the web up to people. Do you think the internet and the web would be as popular as it is today if everyone who started a website had to plunk down wads of cash to buy the software they needed?
Perhaps the most damning line in the entire article:
"Are you an open-source advocate, or do you just not care? Let me know in the talkback below."
Or: Don't bother emailing because I really don't care about this issue one way or another. I'm just glad you saw the ads we tacked on to this story, and I hope you click on a few more pages on ZDNet so we can show you some more.
"It wasn't until the very-much-for-profit AOL snagged a copy in mid-development that anything usable was released. "
Okay, how many AOL engineers have made meaningful contributions to the Mozilla source code? Didn't think so. They are NETSCAPE engineers (who happen to be captured and enslaved by AOL;))
"The most important part of the browser is not its unique blue interface. It's AOL's obvious attempt to tie in the browser to a bunch of for-profit proprietary services"
Eh? They haven't "tied" Mozilla to anything. The Netscape beta had no more "ties" than a version of Internet Explorer (which links to MS news sites, Hotmail etc. etc.). Mozilla doesn't have any of this crap. He completely glosses over the best part of Mozilla-- the NGLayout engine (marketing types call it "Gecko") which is extremely fast and the most compliant out there. Quite an acomplishment considering the the sheer size of standards information it has to adhere to.
"Red Hat took the bait first, gobbling up a small benchmarking company called Bluecurve, which made a database and Web testing program that, while fairly good, had nothing to do with Linux. "
And this proves Open Source doesn't work how? 1) Red Hat is a company, not some sort of programmer collective, and 2) Buying strategic companies to round out your offerings is how you make money. If Red Hat learns anything from Microsoft it should be "trimmings matter", and if you want all the trimmings you're going to need expertise you may not have in-house already. This can be a win-win situation since we the consumer now get our regular product PLUS the trimmings.
"Open source, on the other hand, appears to be struggling. The reason is simple: People gravitate toward products, and open source is not geared to create but to critique. "
He's been listening to too many kiddiez.;) I don't see open source struggling anywhere, I just see it getting stronger and stronger. Not just Linux, Mozilla, Apache, and all of the other success stories we know and love, but the unheard of new offerings from IBM, SOAP stuff, XML libraries, databases...
Anyway, my point is: He's baiting. Ignore him or write a polite letter, but don't flame him or he'll feel vindicated. By pointing out his failings politely and intelligently we'll do much more damage.;)
Looks like a neat little device. However, the pictures of the device reveals that the expansion slot (e.g. for CD-rom) is located on the same side as the USB port. This implies that the USB port (e.g. ethernet connection) can not be used in conjunction with the expansion slot. What a shame.
Fear not! The expansion slot connects to the docking station.... which has a USB port!;)
That nice little logon prompt that you get in Windows NT 4.0 is NOT "Explorer". Go ahead and change your default shell away from Explorer in the registry, you'll still boot to a GUI logon prompt -- there are still GUI elements that are part of NT that aren't "Explorer". You'll notice that you still have your Task Manager around if you don't use "Explorer" as your default NT shell, too. How else would you log out if you used Notepad (for maximum productivity!) as your shell?
And once again, that nice little login screen is not part of the kernel. It's not even part of GDI. Not even close. Changing my shell is akin to changing my window manager -- the fact that I still get an XDM login screen before I login does not mean it's part of the Linux kernel.
There are certain OS level interfaces that are not directly mappable onto NT syscalls. This would make it impossible to provide an interface "exactly" like Linux on NT without having some sort of emulation layer. Could you compile a device driver and load it as a loadable module on the NT box that emulates Linux? Probably not without something like VMWare or WINE or a Frankensteinian combination of the two.
Why couldn't you compile and load a driver under NT? Just because you don't have the control or option to do so currently doesn't mean it's not possible.
Do you think the NT kernel has support for all that hardware built right into the kernel? Certainly not.
Please list some "OS level interfaces" that NT is missing to accomplish this.
No, operating system and interface SHOULDN'T have anything to do with one another. NT has a GUI built into the kernel.
No, it does not (nor does linux, GGI is an interface for accessing the graphics subsystem, not a user interface). The explorer shell is the user interface, and this is NOT part of the NT kernel.
The thing about Unix that is most clear, that sets it apart from other OS's, is its well thought-out design. It was noticably not designed so that any newbie could use it.
You're mixing up the operating system with the interface... they have little to do with eachother.
It would be possible, however unlikely, for Microsoft to create an interface that completely resembles your Linux boxen in every respect, right down to the shells and applications you run. Nothing in their kernel (I'm speaking of NT here, not DOS) prevents them from doing so.
I think the question is asking for a more low level answer.;)
It is nieve of you to assume that all future versions of Windows will always run your Quake 3 for windows.
Not only "nieve", it's silly.;)
Microsoft's pushing and development of Windows 2000 gives us a pretty clear picture of their future roadplans for their OS offerings. And in case you haven't noticed, backwards compatibility with old DOS games is not high on their list of things to support.
The next "consumer" version of Windows (95/98), currently codenamed "millenium" is still a maybe. It may never see the light of day. Slimmed down versions of 2000 are in the works... they might run a better Q]I[, but I'd be surprised if you'll be firing up Leisure Suit Larry on the latest and greatest MS OS for much longer.
Well, by my calculations (assuming that there are 250 million people in this country), that comes out to $6.60 that I could have had. To be quite honest, I wouldn't throw more than about $1 to confirm what other programmes have already found; I'd rather eat a bacon double cheese burger at Burger King. If it's so important let those who care baout it fund it. There is something fundamentally unjust about making someone pay for something he does not want.
I'd rather have $6.60 of my tax dollars spent on this than a program to improve the public's impression of the auto industry. I wish people would put it in perspective. This is $6.60 of your tax dollars that wasn't wasted on something that has NO tanglible results.
I thought that the Voyager probes I and II did more than Galileo did. Do you have some references?
No, because you are correct.;) Galileo has provided confirmation and second opinions however, so I felt my statement was true. It has been a part of most of our discoveries.
I got mad at a perceived luddite threat. $1.65 billion divided over the hunrededs of millions of taxpayers who funded it isn't a bad price at all to pay.
It cost $1.5 billion, yet we got our money's worth? I'm wondering why NASA is so willing to spend that much money on a project that, as SgtPepper stated, was only intended to last two years originally. If it costs that much, it better last for a real long time. Think of what else could have been done with that money.
Galileo has given us invaluable data about our solar system: it's formation, history, what planets are made of and what they look like up close. Pretty much everything we know about our solar system outside of Earth can be attributed to this little space craft. It's well worth $1.5 billion for this knowledge.
<flame> Are you a socialist, or just a luddite? </flame>
While I'm sure that Microsoft's intentions were to break exisitng Kerberos installations so they NEED Win2K somewhere in the mix, it doesn't look like an incorrect use of the field in question. If they argue that they're granting rights to Windows resources only anyway... here's a snipped from RFC 1510:
authorization-data
The authorization-data field is used to pass authorization data from the principal on whose behalf a ticket was issued to the application service. If no authorization data is included, this field will be left out. The data in this field are specific to the end service. It is expected that the field will contain the names of service specific objects, and the rights to those objects. The format for this field is described in section 5.2. Although Kerberos is not concerned with the format of the contents of the subfields, it does carry type information (ad-type).
By using the authorization_data field, a principal is able to issue a proxy that is valid for a specific purpose. For example, a client wishing to print a file can obtain a file server proxy to be passed to the print server. By specifying the name of the file in the authorization_data field, the file server knows that the print server can only use the client's rights when accessing the particular file to be printed.
It is interesting to note that if one specifies the authorization-data field of a proxy and leaves the host addresses blank, the resulting ticket and session key can be treated as a capability. See [9] for some suggested uses of this field.
The authorization-data field is optional and does not have to be included in a ticket.
Please note that I'm not defending Microsoft! It's pretty obvious what their intentions where given their track record.
Having lockpicks isn't illegal. Using them in conjunction with a crime (breaking and entering, robbery, etc.) is illegal and a separate charge.
Extrapolating this to making possession of l0phtcrack illegal is silly. What if he broke into a building, and used a banana to cause a security guard to slip to avoid capture? Would he also be charged with "possession of fruit"?
Same thing with guns. If you legally own a gun and shoot someone, they don't charge you with criminal possession of an unlawful firearm. Possession and use are two seperate things, and this dumb bloke was charged with possession. It's a bad precedant to set.
Do you actually claim that the man and woman did nothing wrong? I just can't see it. Bell was *FIRED* and then used both his contact on the inside and l0Phtcrack to break in and steal stuff. It's clear he wasn't supposed to be there.
Absolutely. However, possession of L0phtcrack does not a criminal make. We use it here at work to determine password strength, and we're not criminals.
It should 9 counts against this extremely stupid man, not 11. 2 counts of owning a software package is silly to the point of string cheese.
The same thing will happen to you. The Linux killer is just around the corner. You don't know what it is, and you won't recognize it when you first see it. The next generation of techies will understand it and will consider you old fogies for having your heads buried in the Linux sand.
Great article, and great conclusion! Hopefully the fanatics who can't grok the basics of a shell prompt but seem to think they can speak for our entire community will read it and think twice next time they start to act like a spoiled child.
Linux is a great operating system, and it's getting better and better every day. It's not the best tool for everyone's needs, but it suits mine and I'm happy. I enjoy being part of a community that fosters sharing and open ideas, and despair when zealots give us a bad name by acting foolishly.
The author hit it right on: Linux will not be around forever. Something better will come along, or Linux will evolve into a different beast entirely and make itself obsolete. What won't change is the community we all build around it and the ideals to which we hold. The recent influx of corporate influences into our community has proven that we can grow and prosper beyond our hobbyist beginnings without compromising our integrity. With a bit of luck, some patience, and a little less fanaticism we'll keep our community throughout the coming years. Good things are in store for us all!
I have access to only at 2400bps modem at home does that mean that it is a crime if I don't have a local number for a BBS to E-trade? When you get some technology you become dependent on it. When you chose to live 50 miles from work and relied on your can and it dies do you feel cheated?
I find it very difficult to belive you can't go work at Burger King for a week to earn enough money to buy a new modem.
And if some punk kids slash my tires on the way to work, yes I do feel cheated.
I could say that if one were to get at least $1,000,000,000 that said person has most likely defrauded some person or done something dishonest in their lives. That is a fact that I am at least 99.9% sure of.
<sarcasm>Well, I for one will sleep well at night knowing you're the one making these decisions for us.</sarcasm>. What is this, some kind of Slashdot Inquisition?
...music...
I was forced to use the internet to get what I wanted...
In the early years of the third millennium, to combat the rising tide of corporate unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal slashdot-terminal leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the internet, in a reign of violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing post. This was the Slashdot Inquisition...
I'm no fan of evil corporations either, which is why I support the justice department when it goes after them. I also support privacy groups that look out for our rights. However, I recognize that without corporations we wouldn't have all that we have today... like the Internet! Tell you what, as soon as you figure out a way to send IP over smoke signals you let me know and I'll join your inquisition.;)
Gnerally there are groups that I would think have a better chance to "fend for themselves" so to speak. I think we all could agree that Microsoft is not entitled to such protection because they most likely could easily hire their own private army of assassins to do so form of quasi-legal garbage and just might get away with it.
Well that's just spanky. At what point do we point to a rich private citizen and say "Okay chum, you're on your own!". Just because they're big and nasty doesn't mean they're not entitled to the protection of the law. What if they started enforcing their own laws? I mean, you're saying the burden of responsibilty is on them, wouldn't they be entitled to do so? I for one shudder at the thought of Microsoft coming up with and enforcing their own laws!:)
Corporations because like so many of the people here have said are EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLL and are akin to the Third Reich in their effect
Dude, or chick, whatever you are, if you'd bother actually loggin and using your login you too would soon become a Karma whore. Notice my account ID is 935. I created my user account and have been posting with it long before Andover even acquired Slashdot. I just recently chnaged my screen name to show that I work for Andover in the spirit of full disclosure. And just to irk you I'm going to Karma whore this comment too. Try logging in sometime you'll like it. Don't worry we won't tell anyone that you're behind the microsoft.com firewall and using IE5 to browse here.
Wow. What are you, around 12 years old?
Get over it. Get over this. Ignore it and move on. Just please stop littering your +2 flames into the discussion.
Yes, that's what will reassure us! An Official Statement! It just isn't healthy to consume this much unintentional humour at one sitting
;)
A poor choice of words on my part I suppose, but you get the idea. It's important that we get an official stance so we can hold them to it down the road.
And once it is in, and if it does go the way of corporate PR, scream, complain, or better yet, create an alternative. If the alternative meets the needs of the community, and/. no longer does, we'll be there.
Perhaps. I think not however. Slashdot has aquired a quasi-religion like status among a portion of it's readers. It can do no wrong. This is a good thing because it enforces the sense of community, it's a bad thing because it can blind us to the reality of the situation.
I'm not saying it's the end of Slashdot as we know it, I just know I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we had more official reassurances that things aren't going to change too much.
They're only human after all, and I doubt CmdrTaco will be on the board of directors at VA!;)
And as you reply to my message to tell me I'm full of dung, just think about it. You're posting to tell me I'm full of dung. You can do that. And if one of the Slashdot guys posts a story that's completely wrong, you can tell the world that he's full of dung too! In fact, you can go even further and do a bit of corrective journalism and post links and resources which tell a fuller or more correct story.
You're not full of dung (unless you're Irish like me, we're all full of shite!). You're absolutely right. However, we don't have any control over the content on the homepage, ie. the stories. This is what most people see and read. Do you really think that every slashdotter reads all the comments, let alone most of them?
You can argue that these folks should be going the extra mile themselves and digging below the fold into the comments to get the real dirt, but that would be missing the point.
The integrity at the comments level will remain the same unless sweeping changes are made, and that's a good thing. The integrity at the news story level now has the appearance of impropriety, and this is a bad thing.
I guess we'll find out in the coming months if our community can survive being a company. Let's face it, almost all the large Linux destinations on the web are now controlled by a very small group of companies.
Thankfully, these companies have (so far) proved to be trustworthy and are valuable members of our community. But will it stay that way? How long can it stay that way?
To me, the Linux community has never been about market share, marketing, "owning the desktop" or any of the other goals that these companies are espousing. It's been about cooperation, sharing, helping someone you don't know compile their own kernel for the first time...
This certainly won't change for me, and I imagine it won't change for most of us, but now the sources we depend upon for unbiased news are possibly about to become tainted. I know the reputations involved are without reproach but with SEC requirements, "quiet periods", appearance of impartiality and whatnot I can't help but wonder if this isn't a good thing (tm).
We've seen vague assurances from some of the parties involved that "creative control" will remain the same. Please, please go a step further: Let's see some of the controlling parties come forward and let us know what these changes mean and don't mean! We need official word that integrity isn't going to suffer! When I read a story about a Microsoft product on a Ziff-Davis rag, I consider it sketchy and possibly unreliable. I don't want to feel the same way when I read a VA Linux story on Slashdot.
Obviously, but since they are reviewing NOSes for enterprise servers, I would not think ease of use could possably outweigh being dead last in file performance. After all, no real enterprise is going to entrust it's file servers to someone who has to have a click and drool interface.
If only this were true.;) There are thousands of enterprise-level Windows NT installations out there. Two jobs ago I worked for a company that has the largest private network on the planet (guess who). They were moving from Netware (4.x running in bindery emulation mode - real geniuses) to Windows NT. Last time I talked to an admin there they were almost totally NT.
Of course, they run their database, mail and web services under UNIX, but all file, print, and even desktop/application databases are NT based.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it'll be messy. You'll probably have to add your own non-compliant headers to maintain the level of threading and moderation you have here, but if the messages are no longer centralized nasty parties will have a harder time making a case for you being responsible for 'em.
I disagree, when joe user sends email it traveses through a web of open source products, like Sendmail. When joe user checks out his baseball scores he's probably using Apache without even knowing it. When joe user connects to his ISP chances are pretty good they're running a great deal of open source software.
Just because it's not on his desktop and in his face doesn't mean it's not written for him. The most successful and popular open source tools are those that OPEN resources like email and the web up to people. Do you think the internet and the web would be as popular as it is today if everyone who started a website had to plunk down wads of cash to buy the software they needed?
"Are you an open-source advocate, or do you just not care? Let me know in the talkback below."
Or: Don't bother emailing because I really don't care about this issue one way or another. I'm just glad you saw the ads we tacked on to this story, and I hope you click on a few more pages on ZDNet so we can show you some more.
"It wasn't until the very-much-for-profit AOL snagged a copy in mid-development that anything usable was released. "
Okay, how many AOL engineers have made meaningful contributions to the Mozilla source code? Didn't think so. They are NETSCAPE engineers (who happen to be captured and enslaved by AOL ;))
"The most important part of the browser is not its unique blue interface. It's AOL's obvious attempt to tie in the browser to a bunch of for-profit proprietary services"
Eh? They haven't "tied" Mozilla to anything. The Netscape beta had no more "ties" than a version of Internet Explorer (which links to MS news sites, Hotmail etc. etc.). Mozilla doesn't have any of this crap. He completely glosses over the best part of Mozilla-- the NGLayout engine (marketing types call it "Gecko") which is extremely fast and the most compliant out there. Quite an acomplishment considering the the sheer size of standards information it has to adhere to.
"Red Hat took the bait first, gobbling up a small benchmarking company called Bluecurve, which made a database and Web testing program that, while fairly good, had nothing to do with Linux. "
And this proves Open Source doesn't work how? 1) Red Hat is a company, not some sort of programmer collective, and 2) Buying strategic companies to round out your offerings is how you make money. If Red Hat learns anything from Microsoft it should be "trimmings matter", and if you want all the trimmings you're going to need expertise you may not have in-house already. This can be a win-win situation since we the consumer now get our regular product PLUS the trimmings.
"Open source, on the other hand, appears to be struggling. The reason is simple: People gravitate toward products, and open source is not geared to create but to critique. "
He's been listening to too many kiddiez. ;) I don't see open source struggling anywhere, I just see it getting stronger and stronger. Not just Linux, Mozilla, Apache, and all of the other success stories we know and love, but the unheard of new offerings from IBM, SOAP stuff, XML libraries, databases...
Anyway, my point is: He's baiting. Ignore him or write a polite letter, but don't flame him or he'll feel vindicated. By pointing out his failings politely and intelligently we'll do much more damage. ;)
Fear not! The expansion slot connects to the docking station.... which has a USB port! ;)
And once again, that nice little login screen is not part of the kernel. It's not even part of GDI. Not even close. Changing my shell is akin to changing my window manager -- the fact that I still get an XDM login screen before I login does not mean it's part of the Linux kernel.
Why couldn't you compile and load a driver under NT? Just because you don't have the control or option to do so currently doesn't mean it's not possible.
Do you think the NT kernel has support for all that hardware built right into the kernel? Certainly not.
Please list some "OS level interfaces" that NT is missing to accomplish this.
No, it does not (nor does linux, GGI is an interface for accessing the graphics subsystem, not a user interface). The explorer shell is the user interface, and this is NOT part of the NT kernel.
You're mixing up the operating system with the interface... they have little to do with eachother.
It would be possible, however unlikely, for Microsoft to create an interface that completely resembles your Linux boxen in every respect, right down to the shells and applications you run. Nothing in their kernel (I'm speaking of NT here, not DOS) prevents them from doing so.
I think the question is asking for a more low level answer. ;)
Not only "nieve", it's silly. ;)
Microsoft's pushing and development of Windows 2000 gives us a pretty clear picture of their future roadplans for their OS offerings. And in case you haven't noticed, backwards compatibility with old DOS games is not high on their list of things to support.
The next "consumer" version of Windows (95/98), currently codenamed "millenium" is still a maybe. It may never see the light of day. Slimmed down versions of 2000 are in the works... they might run a better Q]I[, but I'd be surprised if you'll be firing up Leisure Suit Larry on the latest and greatest MS OS for much longer.
I'd rather have $6.60 of my tax dollars spent on this than a program to improve the public's impression of the auto industry. I wish people would put it in perspective. This is $6.60 of your tax dollars that wasn't wasted on something that has NO tanglible results.
No, because you are correct. ;) Galileo has provided confirmation and second opinions however, so I felt my statement was true. It has been a part of most of our discoveries.
I got mad at a perceived luddite threat. $1.65 billion divided over the hunrededs of millions of taxpayers who funded it isn't a bad price at all to pay.
My bad for exagerating!
Galileo has given us invaluable data about our solar system: it's formation, history, what planets are made of and what they look like up close. Pretty much everything we know about our solar system outside of Earth can be attributed to this little space craft. It's well worth $1.5 billion for this knowledge.
<flame> Are you a socialist, or just a luddite? </flame>
Extrapolating this to making possession of l0phtcrack illegal is silly. What if he broke into a building, and used a banana to cause a security guard to slip to avoid capture? Would he also be charged with "possession of fruit"?
Same thing with guns. If you legally own a gun and shoot someone, they don't charge you with criminal possession of an unlawful firearm. Possession and use are two seperate things, and this dumb bloke was charged with possession. It's a bad precedant to set.
Absolutely. However, possession of L0phtcrack does not a criminal make. We use it here at work to determine password strength, and we're not criminals.
It should 9 counts against this extremely stupid man, not 11. 2 counts of owning a software package is silly to the point of string cheese.
Great article, and great conclusion! Hopefully the fanatics who can't grok the basics of a shell prompt but seem to think they can speak for our entire community will read it and think twice next time they start to act like a spoiled child.
Linux is a great operating system, and it's getting better and better every day. It's not the best tool for everyone's needs, but it suits mine and I'm happy. I enjoy being part of a community that fosters sharing and open ideas, and despair when zealots give us a bad name by acting foolishly.
The author hit it right on: Linux will not be around forever. Something better will come along, or Linux will evolve into a different beast entirely and make itself obsolete. What won't change is the community we all build around it and the ideals to which we hold. The recent influx of corporate influences into our community has proven that we can grow and prosper beyond our hobbyist beginnings without compromising our integrity. With a bit of luck, some patience, and a little less fanaticism we'll keep our community throughout the coming years. Good things are in store for us all!
I find it very difficult to belive you can't go work at Burger King for a week to earn enough money to buy a new modem.
And if some punk kids slash my tires on the way to work, yes I do feel cheated.
<sarcasm>Well, I for one will sleep well at night knowing you're the one making these decisions for us.</sarcasm>. What is this, some kind of Slashdot Inquisition?
I was forced to use the internet to get what I wanted ...
In the early years of the third millennium, to combat the rising tide of corporate unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal slashdot-terminal leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the internet, in a reign of violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing post. This was the Slashdot Inquisition...
I'm no fan of evil corporations either, which is why I support the justice department when it goes after them. I also support privacy groups that look out for our rights. However, I recognize that without corporations we wouldn't have all that we have today... like the Internet! Tell you what, as soon as you figure out a way to send IP over smoke signals you let me know and I'll join your inquisition. ;)
Well that's just spanky. At what point do we point to a rich private citizen and say "Okay chum, you're on your own!". Just because they're big and nasty doesn't mean they're not entitled to the protection of the law. What if they started enforcing their own laws? I mean, you're saying the burden of responsibilty is on them, wouldn't they be entitled to do so? I for one shudder at the thought of Microsoft coming up with and enforcing their own laws! :)
Corporations because like so many of the people here have said are EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLL and are akin to the Third Reich in their effect
Hmm, does this count as a Hitler reference?
Wow. What are you, around 12 years old?
Get over it. Get over this. Ignore it and move on. Just please stop littering your +2 flames into the discussion.
It just isn't healthy to consume this much unintentional humour at one sitting
A poor choice of words on my part I suppose, but you get the idea. It's important that we get an official stance so we can hold them to it down the road.
Perhaps. I think not however. Slashdot has aquired a quasi-religion like status among a portion of it's readers. It can do no wrong. This is a good thing because it enforces the sense of community, it's a bad thing because it can blind us to the reality of the situation.
I'm not saying it's the end of Slashdot as we know it, I just know I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we had more official reassurances that things aren't going to change too much.
They're only human after all, and I doubt CmdrTaco will be on the board of directors at VA! ;)
You're not full of dung (unless you're Irish like me, we're all full of shite!). You're absolutely right. However, we don't have any control over the content on the homepage, ie. the stories. This is what most people see and read. Do you really think that every slashdotter reads all the comments, let alone most of them?
You can argue that these folks should be going the extra mile themselves and digging below the fold into the comments to get the real dirt, but that would be missing the point.
The integrity at the comments level will remain the same unless sweeping changes are made, and that's a good thing. The integrity at the news story level now has the appearance of impropriety, and this is a bad thing.
Thankfully, these companies have (so far) proved to be trustworthy and are valuable members of our community. But will it stay that way? How long can it stay that way?
To me, the Linux community has never been about market share, marketing, "owning the desktop" or any of the other goals that these companies are espousing. It's been about cooperation, sharing, helping someone you don't know compile their own kernel for the first time...
This certainly won't change for me, and I imagine it won't change for most of us, but now the sources we depend upon for unbiased news are possibly about to become tainted. I know the reputations involved are without reproach but with SEC requirements, "quiet periods", appearance of impartiality and whatnot I can't help but wonder if this isn't a good thing (tm).
We've seen vague assurances from some of the parties involved that "creative control" will remain the same. Please, please go a step further: Let's see some of the controlling parties come forward and let us know what these changes mean and don't mean! We need official word that integrity isn't going to suffer! When I read a story about a Microsoft product on a Ziff-Davis rag, I consider it sketchy and possibly unreliable. I don't want to feel the same way when I read a VA Linux story on Slashdot.
If only this were true. ;) There are thousands of enterprise-level Windows NT installations out there. Two jobs ago I worked for a company that has the largest private network on the planet (guess who). They were moving from Netware (4.x running in bindery emulation mode - real geniuses) to Windows NT. Last time I talked to an admin there they were almost totally NT.
Of course, they run their database, mail and web services under UNIX, but all file, print, and even desktop/application databases are NT based.