Wow, that explains the ancient mindset of the music industry.
It's not just an ancient mindset, it's an ancient industry. It's foundation is limitation of publication of physical media. From the broken presses of Gilbert and Sullivan sheet music presses to CD burnings, the industry has existed only through the intervention and support of government. In the US, the establishment clause of the constitution somehow has given us eternal copyright, three broadcasters and three big music publishers with much overlap. It has enriched a few at the expense of all those excluded from their free market share of popular culture. Just ask Courtney Love. The internet has pulled the rug out from the pigopolists and they are going the same place your record player has gone. You, me and the artists are going to win this one.
Wouldn't we expect the level of file sharing to go up, proportional to the growing internet population?
Yes and it did. That is a brief history of the 90s.
If it has, in fact, stayed flat that would indicate something is creating downward pressure.
What you see is market destruction and saturation. The big publishers wiped out their competition, so their primary market is left with bad choices and continues to make them at the same rate as always.
Don't confuse broadband adoption with internet access and don't think that you need broadband to swap music. Internet access itself has remained constant in the developed world. Everyone who wants it has had it for years. Broadband is needed for other activities that require instant feedback but music is not one of them.
Music sharing was big before broadband became common because songs are only a few megabytes in size. Back in the day, people would set their favorite client to download their music while they did other things. There's only so much free music a person wants in a given night and dial up worked just fine. A person using the old Napster was exposed to more new music than any commercial radio station can provide and often collected more songs than the average station carries in inventory. Having your requests met in minutes is not much more satisfying than your computer getting it over an hour or so. The thing that mattered was variety and price.
It's not surprising that "piracy" is still rampant because the greedheads turned everything else off. Legitimate providers like MP3.com were all shut down and replaced by greedy nonsense like ITunes and horrid clients like WMP. After years of stagnation, other legitimate services are finally coming back on line. Places like Magnatune are finally going to put money in artist's pockets and new music at your fingertips. In the mean time, anyone who really wants music will find a way. The tools only get better and the difference between what you can get on music sharing services and what's offered by the big publishers and broadcasters is still staggering.
What is the point of hacking a livejournal account? I guess you could put up some ads...
The point of hacking people's journals is Astroturfing and Google page rank modification. If you did it right, you could create a false sense of community trust or like of your product and the blog owner would never know. Companies that forge letters from dead people on their behalf, invent "apple switchers" and pay students to talk to strangers about product and pressure their professors are all over that kind of thing. Companies like Microsoft have long focused on pleasing "decision makers" as a means of selling more of their junk. Haven't you noticed the crapflood of M$ apologists here on Slashdot?
Deceptive techniques like this invariably backfire. A crap flood here on Slashdot filled with praise of XP was the last time I took any praise of anything Microsoft seriously. I read comment after comment of +5 informative drivel that mirrored M$ marketing I would hear elsewhere later, "It's based on the NT kernel so it's solid..." and other better tempered bullshit. Five years later, we see that it was no more stable than any other M$ junk, has a 12 minute half life on any network, and that it did little more than force people to buy new hardware to get the same old things done. There are countless other examples of bogus praise M$ has bought here in one way or another. The net result of this kind of bullshit is for me to not trust anything positive I hear about anything M$.
Going by your question above, do you use absolutely no closed-source software?
Yes.
If you don't, is that because you are afraid that They have put spyware in it?
That's part one of the many disadvantages of software having owners.
Is your tin-foil hat comfortable?
Yes, much more so than most commercial software. You should try it out sometimes. Here's a distribution that autoconfigures, runs from CD, has a GUI install and comes with some commercial software, like flash and acroread, as a security blanket.
... an explosion in the number of published articles and an equally dramatic drop in the substance of said articles. The result is that even in a small sub-field, there are too many publications for an individual to keep track of. Actually reading other people's articles takes a lot of time, often only to discover that the reported research is superficial and the time spent understanding the paper was wasted anyway.
You can never have too much information. A search engine could fix your problem if all the publishers were not such greed heads about other people's work. The bastards won't even share abstracts. The problem I see is a lack of sharing not too much of it.
The crisis the article describes is one of information sharing. A handful of institutions sharing data with themselves is not going to overcome the larger problems of publication and that is a copyright issue. Industry publications are covered with ND nonsense and it's harder than ever to find them, even in university libraries.
If they wanted to download some stuff to my PC and execute it they could distribute it as an update. They could add the code to IE or the kernel. This is one of the dumber conspiracy theories I have read.
So, you think that M$ can and have put backdoors into your system but you still use it? Now that's dumb. Who needs conspiracies when everyone accepts their reasoning as good business practice? Here's a little refresher on what backdoors are all about.
The reasons for backdoors is so that you and your friends can access the target. There's plenty of circumstantial and other evidence of the US government demanding such access to computers in general. This should not be surprising in light of DOJ and FBI wiretapping demands and a long standing history of domestic spying abuse. There are many well documented cases of security being less than advertised by zero padding and other nonsense like that. I also know of people who claim they got out of business when approached by government representatives who demanded such access to their software. Closed source software conceals such garbage.
The only software you can really trust is the kind you can inspect and build yourself. If it matters, you should not run anything else.
people like Star Trek, and a new series would be welcomed by the audience, if it was good enough.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for the reality series but it never seems to get off the ground. GWB is talked about Mars, but he went to Iraq instead. We were supposed to have used nuclear rockets to colonize Mars by now but the projects keep getting shut down and all we are left with is fantasy.
To be clear, there is no excuse for the trouble you're describing. I've done mail admin, server admin, network admin, and security on all of the above-- and I'd disappear any mail admin who chronically couldn't figure out how to patch an Exchange box without blowing up established SMTP relay allowances.
This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. It's M$ policy to block all but their crappy client software and they are starting to talk about it as a security measure. Soon, the only way to dissapear the person who could not patch/upgrade/turn on the Exchange box without blowing up SMTP is going to be to dissapear the box.
Me:Not accepting SMTP requests from desktops is just another workaround to M$'s really shitty security that won't work.
You:Then why would any well-run Unix shop also use mailhub? Why do Unix MSPs implement that functionality? Why does every well-known figure in Unix mail recommend using that functionality for this purpose?
There's nothing wrong with a mailhub, as long as it works with published standards. What's happening in the big dumb company world is that admins are closing port 25 on their mail servers and eliminating SMTP in favor of some kind of M$ Exchange mess. As the administrator here told me, "I'll look into opening that port (he did not know which one) for SMTP on the Exchange server, but I'll have to find out it that poses any security risk." This replaces well known sturdy software with the worst of class, Exchange on the server and Outlook or IE on the desktop.
This is just another anti-competitive thing M$ has come up with for it's partners. Why anyone would listen to them and get themselves that much more locked in after their repeated failures is beyond me.
A perl script to automatically surf pages on a spare machine and fill this thing up with valid-looking but nonetheless phony data, in 5... 4... 3...
And just how do you think you are going to know about all of those offers of "something of value"? Imagine all of the marketing firms offering you great discounts on XYZ you have no interest in buying. Unless the offer is hard cash only, this service will equal one huge billboard for you to look at.
Because if we didn't, the same thing would happen eighty times a year instead of once.
I'm not sure how it could happen more than 52 times a year. It takes at least a week to reinstall all that broken junk. Considering the number of critical patches every month, it's a wonder this limit is not attained.
Let's hope more people do as you say and less as you do. As you said somewhere else, "security would be easier in an environment where everyone ran Linux on the desktop." I say it would be a lot easier for everyone. I won't have to pay that much more for all those things big dumb companies make. I also won't have to put up with their big dumb networks taking down the whole internet and being used for extortion and all the other things the M$ monoculture provides.
You're right - security would be easier in an environment where everyone ran Linux on the desktop. Then we could all use LDAP for directory and IMAP for mail and we could safely run sendmail from our workstations. But large corporations don't work that way, unfortunately, and if you want a job in this environment, you come to terms with that.
Beautiful.
They can't afford your overpriced, underpowered machines when they have to be deployed to fifty thousand users.
Tell me how they afford week long downtimes everytime another M$ worm comes out.
You've clearly never been in an enterprise environment.
I've been in some those silly places. Others, like Lowes, General Motors, IBM etc. are better run than the mythical "enterprise" that thinks of M$ as a "standard" for anything other than a money sink.
I love all the "fuck you" I'm getting from M$ shills and fanboys. They are all so angry because their stuff does not work and everyone knows it.
My house has no basement and I own it, thanks for asking.
Breaking a single machine, or even a single application on all machines, is a lot less of a problem than EVERY machine being rendered unusable by an exploited vulnerability.
You do all of this, yet the same thing happens every year. Why is that?
"the sending of email via SMTP" -- Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but if you mean "our desktops and servers have to pass email to the designated relay", then I'm completely unsympathetic. If your complaint is about poor performance, complain about that -- but your desktop and your production machines are not mail servers!
Why not? Production machines need to be able to mail their owners about problems. Desktops need to be able to send mail. Both might just not be Windoze machines able to talk to your crappy, virused out Exchange "server".
Not accepting SMTP requests from desktops is just another workaround to M$'s really shitty security that won't work. The virus writers will figure out how to use the exchange server through 2k worth of API calls before the ability comes to either of the uses you deride.
I'm willing to bet they think it's [applying "security patches" that break everything else] important...no one lets themselves in for a shitstorm voluntarily just 'cos it's, you know, second Tuesday of the month.
Can you imagine that mindlessly applying "patches" that never seem to really improve security but manage to make machines stop working is a bad idea? What's important to you should be that people and machines do what they are supposed to.
I'm lucky so far -- it's a small company, people are well-behaved, and I don't have to implement the policies you describe.
It's not the users. Think about it and tell me why you have never heard of such problems in places that use Macs. Don't tell me that it's because graphic designers are better behaved or know more about computers than the rest of us. Well, they do know better than to use computers that need and Administrator like you.
The company I work at does none of those things, and the network runs almost perfectly. There is a balance.
I'd like to see any Windoze network that is no plagued with problems, regardless of what is done to it. It does not exist, which is why you see such extremely stupid policies on big dumb company networks.
Those dumb policy decisions are the end of the admin's rope. Everyone else has had enough and the administrators are going to be fired for the kind of performance you see on Windoze, even when the admins do every dumb thing Bill Gates and company dream up in their never ending quest to blame everyone else for their crap.
If surfing "bad" sites is THAT important to you, perhaps its time to get your resume out to a company that trusts its employees more.
If you've worked in a plant, as you say you have, you surely understand the value of owner's groups. You also understand blacklists and how difficult it is to change jobs in a market that's been shrinking and consolidating for decades.
The "render farm" for Star Wreck is in the kitchen. Look down the page or click here for image. Looks like four of five PCs to me and if that's all it takes, an eight processor cell can do it. Will it go real time? I don't know, but the reviewer saw for himself.
I think saying that the PS3 with Cell, "...is going to enable PS3 developers to create movie-quality games with blazing-speed graphics" is misleading, ignorant and sensationlist journalism.
He saw a demo at CES and thought it was so much better than anything else he saw that he was ready to declare the cell revolutionary. That's saying something, despite the source. Forbes has always loved M$, and does have a tendency to hype things, so they are not the best source but I'm looking forward to seeing PS3 in stores for myself. The buzz for this is much more earned than Xbox's.
With even the people at Forbes drooling about cell, Intel needs to look like it has something new. Pentium 5 is not just a bad joke, it's a bad old joke.
A more practical approach: Normal Wallet and Foil
on
Make an RFID-proof wallet
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A more practical approach, if you are only looking at stopping cusual walk-by snooping, would be to carry a conventionnal wallet into a pocket lined with aluminium foil.
Why not just line a nice wallet with foil? The quick and dirty way is to put a large piece of foil in the billfold section. If you want to get fancy, unstitch the liner and shove the foil between the leather and the liner, then stitch it back. This might take a little longer than making a wallet from duct tape, but it will look much nicer and much less kooky.
It's going to be worth my effort to take my pass card out of my wallet if the door opener at work can also read my credit cards. The people at work use M$ for all sorts of stuff, so I imagine it's easy to own the card reader.
Unless you've configged your laptop to always assume it will be constrained behind a NAT, exposed to a subnet of trusted hosts only. Yeah, right.
As Windoze has a 12 minute half life on any network this is exactly how an admin would want to set up a Windoze laptop. The reported behavior setting up rouge subnets between laptops in and outside the company exposes those laptops to much more than any admin ever intends.
Unpredicted and unintended behavior are always security problems.
the risk from software patents, DMCA, and other legal pitfalls is entirely exaggerated. I'll go into that in more depth in the follow-up article.
DMCA + Paladium = No Free Software.
It's hard enough for people to keep up with and share information about hardware as it is. If commodity hardware makers move toward "trusted computing" which will only boot free software through some kind of M$ virtual machine, I'll be able to boot about as well as I can watch DVDs under free software today. I'm interested in how you think people can get around such nonsense.
Who said I was slapping around GNU? More importantly, what from TFA gives you that idea?
This did:
Open source conventional wisdom tells a tale of good versus evil, David versus Goliath, in a struggle to protect users from the malevolent intent of large software companies. The narrative usually begins with Richard Stallman, upset with printer manufacturers releasing binary-only drivers that prevent him from fixing bugs in the software. From there, the story includes the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a means of ultimately producing a free operating system.
Conventional wisdom recognizes this as the official birth of the free software movement, an idealistic and political movement that specifically sought to protect the freedoms of computer users.
A little flip and breezy but not so bad so far. Combined with this though, and you have a problem:
What's Wrong with That? What if you discovered that everything you ever learned about open source growth was wrong? What if the narrative that pitches open source in terms of battling evil software giants wasn't actually correct?
There's a confusion between the Free Software and Open Software movements here which belittles the purpose of the Free Software movement. You appreciation for the moral high ground got drowned out somewhere between your mentioning the free software movement's beginning and when you tell the reader that everything they just read is wrong.
If your point is really that, "open source companies can be just as exploitative and underhanded as traditional proprietary ones," then you might want to stick to stories about that. There are good examples of companies taking advantage of other people's desire to share. The Free Software Foundation usually has examples just like that next to their advice.
Such abuses are exactly what the Free Software Foundation is designed to combat. They do this by propagating what they think is important in software and telling people how to protect it. They are about good against evil and spend a lot of time figuring the issues out.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just an ancient mindset, it's an ancient industry. It's foundation is limitation of publication of physical media. From the broken presses of Gilbert and Sullivan sheet music presses to CD burnings, the industry has existed only through the intervention and support of government. In the US, the establishment clause of the constitution somehow has given us eternal copyright, three broadcasters and three big music publishers with much overlap. It has enriched a few at the expense of all those excluded from their free market share of popular culture. Just ask Courtney Love. The internet has pulled the rug out from the pigopolists and they are going the same place your record player has gone. You, me and the artists are going to win this one.
Yes and it did. That is a brief history of the 90s.
If it has, in fact, stayed flat that would indicate something is creating downward pressure.
What you see is market destruction and saturation. The big publishers wiped out their competition, so their primary market is left with bad choices and continues to make them at the same rate as always.
Don't confuse broadband adoption with internet access and don't think that you need broadband to swap music. Internet access itself has remained constant in the developed world. Everyone who wants it has had it for years. Broadband is needed for other activities that require instant feedback but music is not one of them.
Music sharing was big before broadband became common because songs are only a few megabytes in size. Back in the day, people would set their favorite client to download their music while they did other things. There's only so much free music a person wants in a given night and dial up worked just fine. A person using the old Napster was exposed to more new music than any commercial radio station can provide and often collected more songs than the average station carries in inventory. Having your requests met in minutes is not much more satisfying than your computer getting it over an hour or so. The thing that mattered was variety and price.
It's not surprising that "piracy" is still rampant because the greedheads turned everything else off. Legitimate providers like MP3.com were all shut down and replaced by greedy nonsense like ITunes and horrid clients like WMP. After years of stagnation, other legitimate services are finally coming back on line. Places like Magnatune are finally going to put money in artist's pockets and new music at your fingertips. In the mean time, anyone who really wants music will find a way. The tools only get better and the difference between what you can get on music sharing services and what's offered by the big publishers and broadcasters is still staggering.
The greedheads are losing.
The point of hacking people's journals is Astroturfing and Google page rank modification. If you did it right, you could create a false sense of community trust or like of your product and the blog owner would never know. Companies that forge letters from dead people on their behalf, invent "apple switchers" and pay students to talk to strangers about product and pressure their professors are all over that kind of thing. Companies like Microsoft have long focused on pleasing "decision makers" as a means of selling more of their junk. Haven't you noticed the crapflood of M$ apologists here on Slashdot?
Deceptive techniques like this invariably backfire. A crap flood here on Slashdot filled with praise of XP was the last time I took any praise of anything Microsoft seriously. I read comment after comment of +5 informative drivel that mirrored M$ marketing I would hear elsewhere later, "It's based on the NT kernel so it's solid ..." and other better tempered bullshit. Five years later, we see that it was no more stable than any other M$ junk, has a 12 minute half life on any network, and that it did little more than force people to buy new hardware to get the same old things done. There are countless other examples of bogus praise M$ has bought here in one way or another. The net result of this kind of bullshit is for me to not trust anything positive I hear about anything M$.
Yes.
If you don't, is that because you are afraid that They have put spyware in it?
That's part one of the many disadvantages of software having owners.
Is your tin-foil hat comfortable?
Yes, much more so than most commercial software. You should try it out sometimes. Here's a distribution that autoconfigures, runs from CD, has a GUI install and comes with some commercial software, like flash and acroread, as a security blanket.
You can never have too much information. A search engine could fix your problem if all the publishers were not such greed heads about other people's work. The bastards won't even share abstracts. The problem I see is a lack of sharing not too much of it.
So, you think that M$ can and have put backdoors into your system but you still use it? Now that's dumb. Who needs conspiracies when everyone accepts their reasoning as good business practice? Here's a little refresher on what backdoors are all about.
The reasons for backdoors is so that you and your friends can access the target. There's plenty of circumstantial and other evidence of the US government demanding such access to computers in general. This should not be surprising in light of DOJ and FBI wiretapping demands and a long standing history of domestic spying abuse. There are many well documented cases of security being less than advertised by zero padding and other nonsense like that. I also know of people who claim they got out of business when approached by government representatives who demanded such access to their software. Closed source software conceals such garbage.
The only software you can really trust is the kind you can inspect and build yourself. If it matters, you should not run anything else.
What wall?
Yeah, I'm still waiting for the reality series but it never seems to get off the ground. GWB is talked about Mars, but he went to Iraq instead. We were supposed to have used nuclear rockets to colonize Mars by now but the projects keep getting shut down and all we are left with is fantasy.
This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. It's M$ policy to block all but their crappy client software and they are starting to talk about it as a security measure. Soon, the only way to dissapear the person who could not patch/upgrade/turn on the Exchange box without blowing up SMTP is going to be to dissapear the box.
You:Then why would any well-run Unix shop also use mailhub? Why do Unix MSPs implement that functionality? Why does every well-known figure in Unix mail recommend using that functionality for this purpose?
There's nothing wrong with a mailhub, as long as it works with published standards. What's happening in the big dumb company world is that admins are closing port 25 on their mail servers and eliminating SMTP in favor of some kind of M$ Exchange mess. As the administrator here told me, "I'll look into opening that port (he did not know which one) for SMTP on the Exchange server, but I'll have to find out it that poses any security risk." This replaces well known sturdy software with the worst of class, Exchange on the server and Outlook or IE on the desktop.
This is just another anti-competitive thing M$ has come up with for it's partners. Why anyone would listen to them and get themselves that much more locked in after their repeated failures is beyond me.
And just how do you think you are going to know about all of those offers of "something of value"? Imagine all of the marketing firms offering you great discounts on XYZ you have no interest in buying. Unless the offer is hard cash only, this service will equal one huge billboard for you to look at.
I'm not sure how it could happen more than 52 times a year. It takes at least a week to reinstall all that broken junk. Considering the number of critical patches every month, it's a wonder this limit is not attained.
Let's hope more people do as you say and less as you do. As you said somewhere else, "security would be easier in an environment where everyone ran Linux on the desktop." I say it would be a lot easier for everyone. I won't have to pay that much more for all those things big dumb companies make. I also won't have to put up with their big dumb networks taking down the whole internet and being used for extortion and all the other things the M$ monoculture provides.
Beautiful.
They can't afford your overpriced, underpowered machines when they have to be deployed to fifty thousand users.
Tell me how they afford week long downtimes everytime another M$ worm comes out.
You've clearly never been in an enterprise environment.
I've been in some those silly places. Others, like Lowes, General Motors, IBM etc. are better run than the mythical "enterprise" that thinks of M$ as a "standard" for anything other than a money sink.
I love all the "fuck you" I'm getting from M$ shills and fanboys. They are all so angry because their stuff does not work and everyone knows it.
My house has no basement and I own it, thanks for asking.
Bill Gates Loves You.
On this planet, where you know, people need to get things done there is software that works.
You do all of this, yet the same thing happens every year. Why is that?
Why not? Production machines need to be able to mail their owners about problems. Desktops need to be able to send mail. Both might just not be Windoze machines able to talk to your crappy, virused out Exchange "server".
Not accepting SMTP requests from desktops is just another workaround to M$'s really shitty security that won't work. The virus writers will figure out how to use the exchange server through 2k worth of API calls before the ability comes to either of the uses you deride.
I'm willing to bet they think it's [applying "security patches" that break everything else] important...no one lets themselves in for a shitstorm voluntarily just 'cos it's, you know, second Tuesday of the month.
Can you imagine that mindlessly applying "patches" that never seem to really improve security but manage to make machines stop working is a bad idea? What's important to you should be that people and machines do what they are supposed to.
I'm lucky so far -- it's a small company, people are well-behaved, and I don't have to implement the policies you describe.
It's not the users. Think about it and tell me why you have never heard of such problems in places that use Macs. Don't tell me that it's because graphic designers are better behaved or know more about computers than the rest of us. Well, they do know better than to use computers that need and Administrator like you.
I'd like to see any Windoze network that is no plagued with problems, regardless of what is done to it. It does not exist, which is why you see such extremely stupid policies on big dumb company networks.
Those dumb policy decisions are the end of the admin's rope. Everyone else has had enough and the administrators are going to be fired for the kind of performance you see on Windoze, even when the admins do every dumb thing Bill Gates and company dream up in their never ending quest to blame everyone else for their crap.
If surfing "bad" sites is THAT important to you, perhaps its time to get your resume out to a company that trusts its employees more.
If you've worked in a plant, as you say you have, you surely understand the value of owner's groups. You also understand blacklists and how difficult it is to change jobs in a market that's been shrinking and consolidating for decades.
He saw a demo at CES and thought it was so much better than anything else he saw that he was ready to declare the cell revolutionary. That's saying something, despite the source. Forbes has always loved M$, and does have a tendency to hype things, so they are not the best source but I'm looking forward to seeing PS3 in stores for myself. The buzz for this is much more earned than Xbox's.
Why not just line a nice wallet with foil? The quick and dirty way is to put a large piece of foil in the billfold section. If you want to get fancy, unstitch the liner and shove the foil between the leather and the liner, then stitch it back. This might take a little longer than making a wallet from duct tape, but it will look much nicer and much less kooky.
It's going to be worth my effort to take my pass card out of my wallet if the door opener at work can also read my credit cards. The people at work use M$ for all sorts of stuff, so I imagine it's easy to own the card reader.
As Windoze has a 12 minute half life on any network this is exactly how an admin would want to set up a Windoze laptop. The reported behavior setting up rouge subnets between laptops in and outside the company exposes those laptops to much more than any admin ever intends.
Unpredicted and unintended behavior are always security problems.
DMCA + Paladium = No Free Software.
It's hard enough for people to keep up with and share information about hardware as it is. If commodity hardware makers move toward "trusted computing" which will only boot free software through some kind of M$ virtual machine, I'll be able to boot about as well as I can watch DVDs under free software today. I'm interested in how you think people can get around such nonsense.
This did:
Open source conventional wisdom tells a tale of good versus evil, David versus Goliath, in a struggle to protect users from the malevolent intent of large software companies. The narrative usually begins with Richard Stallman, upset with printer manufacturers releasing binary-only drivers that prevent him from fixing bugs in the software. From there, the story includes the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a means of ultimately producing a free operating system. Conventional wisdom recognizes this as the official birth of the free software movement, an idealistic and political movement that specifically sought to protect the freedoms of computer users.
A little flip and breezy but not so bad so far. Combined with this though, and you have a problem:
What's Wrong with That? What if you discovered that everything you ever learned about open source growth was wrong? What if the narrative that pitches open source in terms of battling evil software giants wasn't actually correct?
There's a confusion between the Free Software and Open Software movements here which belittles the purpose of the Free Software movement. You appreciation for the moral high ground got drowned out somewhere between your mentioning the free software movement's beginning and when you tell the reader that everything they just read is wrong.
If your point is really that, "open source companies can be just as exploitative and underhanded as traditional proprietary ones," then you might want to stick to stories about that. There are good examples of companies taking advantage of other people's desire to share. The Free Software Foundation usually has examples just like that next to their advice.
Such abuses are exactly what the Free Software Foundation is designed to combat. They do this by propagating what they think is important in software and telling people how to protect it. They are about good against evil and spend a lot of time figuring the issues out.