I've been following the thousands of posts on Slashdot regarding Microsoft's actions, and I must say that some Slashdotters seem to be a particularily paranoid bunch. Yes, Microsoft is a big corporation run by some pretty paranoid people and would love to dominate the software world if given half a chance. But the dominant theory I keep hearing is that somewhere, within the bowels of Redmond, WA there is a secret group of anti-UNIX conspirators who have led a carefully orchestrated attempt to run Slashdot into the ground by creating a legal controversy and planting copyrighted documents. CSB Spender and the rest, smoking their thick cigars and pondering just what they can do next to annoy Geeks around the world... it sounds like a bad X-Files episode.
Has anyone else observed this rampant suspicion of hidden Microsoft plants and been reminded of 1950s style McCarthyism?
My point is that Microsoft probably did not plant these URLs and copyright violations to subvert Slashdot. There are plenty of better reasons why other people would have put them there, say angry users bent on venting on Microsoft by flaunting their license and posting their content.
By now, Microsoft must realize that the best way to win the world over to Windoze 2000 is not by convincing hard-core Linux devotees with strong technical knowledge and little corporate power, but the IS Managers, CTOs, and B2B executives of the world. Slashdot is not their arena for this battle of mindshare.
I'm sure there are people at Microsoft who observe what goes on at Slashdot, but in the long run I can't see any vast strategic benefit to "discredit" Slashdot in the mainstream press.
People who participate in this kind of forum would only be encouraged by this kind of attack. In fact, this is great publicity for Slashdot and could easily result in a greater readership. Our faithful editors, whether they intended to or not, played a very stategic hand in asking for community response both in their comment and their letter to Microsoft -- not only did it help to polarize the issue and foster an adversarial metaphor, but it accomplished a particular politicized liberitarian call to action. I personally happen to agree with the cause against the DMCA, but I think we should all be aware of the very hot-headed way the issue is being played by all sides.
My guess it that someone at MS observed that people were cirumventing their EULA and knowing full well that they have to protect their copyright to maintain their legal protection, he passed it along to some poor desk guy who sent out a boilerplate message with a cc: to legal. It sounds a lot more plausible than deep conspiracy theories.
(BTW: I don't work for Microsoft, I agree they are mostly wrong here, and I hope I don't get flamed too badly.)
I personally like the Cybex switches, although they are very expensive. They are data center quality though, and very reliable. I belive we use them here in our datacenters (a to-be-unnamed major internet services provider) so they are hardy enough for major commercial work.
One key thing to look for is if your KVM has a digital boost. Anything that has an analog switch is going to result in signal degradation, which can be deadly over long distances or high monitor resolutions. I can't stand the sort of ghosting that the $200-300 switches give you. Completely unacceptable for desktop use, IMHO. My Cybex Autoview has a digital boost which seems to eliminate this kind of problem. You can also string multiple ones together so a single head can control 64 machines. However, these kinds of features usually adds a lot to the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone else observed this rampant suspicion of hidden Microsoft plants and been reminded of 1950s style McCarthyism?
My point is that Microsoft probably did not plant these URLs and copyright violations to subvert Slashdot. There are plenty of better reasons why other people would have put them there, say angry users bent on venting on Microsoft by flaunting their license and posting their content.
By now, Microsoft must realize that the best way to win the world over to Windoze 2000 is not by convincing hard-core Linux devotees with strong technical knowledge and little corporate power, but the IS Managers, CTOs, and B2B executives of the world. Slashdot is not their arena for this battle of mindshare.
I'm sure there are people at Microsoft who observe what goes on at Slashdot, but in the long run I can't see any vast strategic benefit to "discredit" Slashdot in the mainstream press.
People who participate in this kind of forum would only be encouraged by this kind of attack. In fact, this is great publicity for Slashdot and could easily result in a greater readership. Our faithful editors, whether they intended to or not, played a very stategic hand in asking for community response both in their comment and their letter to Microsoft -- not only did it help to polarize the issue and foster an adversarial metaphor, but it accomplished a particular politicized liberitarian call to action. I personally happen to agree with the cause against the DMCA, but I think we should all be aware of the very hot-headed way the issue is being played by all sides.
My guess it that someone at MS observed that people were cirumventing their EULA and knowing full well that they have to protect their copyright to maintain their legal protection, he passed it along to some poor desk guy who sent out a boilerplate message with a cc: to legal. It sounds a lot more plausible than deep conspiracy theories.
(BTW: I don't work for Microsoft, I agree they are mostly wrong here, and I hope I don't get flamed too badly.)
One key thing to look for is if your KVM has a digital boost. Anything that has an analog switch is going to result in signal degradation, which can be deadly over long distances or high monitor resolutions. I can't stand the sort of ghosting that the $200-300 switches give you. Completely unacceptable for desktop use, IMHO. My Cybex Autoview has a digital boost which seems to eliminate this kind of problem. You can also string multiple ones together so a single head can control 64 machines. However, these kinds of features usually adds a lot to the cost.