OK, lots of good advice has been put forth here already. One bit of it, I'll even repeat: If you need real ear protection, look at Etymotics.
That said, one of the points of a server room is that you should almost never be in it! Racking and wiring computers can take a while admittedly, but in our fairly large data centre (~10,000 ft^2), we probably have someone in the data centre maybe an hour a day, and that's spread across all groups (Unix, Intel, telecom, networking, backups, and building maintenance). I go down to the server room _maybe_ once a week to swap out a bad drive or something like.
If it's a one-time server room setup and install, I'd probably just suffer with the cheap earplugs. If you're spending that much time in the data centre after it's operational, you should definitely look at your policies and procedures, and see if you can change that.
If I'm so dense, how come you're the one who believes I'm in the USA? I'm not.
Regarding the Covenant, that's not what you were talking about in your original post. You very clearly stated that because of the UN Universal Declaration, the US couldn't do this. My point was that that document did not make the US beholden to any particular behaviour.
Besides, you never did address the second point--that the USA is regularly and routinely breaking international treaties which they have signed. Basically, they'll do what they want, internally and externally.
"the human rights" you speak of is presumably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That leads to a number of holes in your bulletproof logic.
1) This is not a guarantee of any behaviour. In other words, this is not law, and not enforceable. In fact, if you read more than just one line of it, you'll see that it says: "Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
In other words, it's a goal--a target for all nations. It's not a statement of fact, not a law, and not a treaty.
2) Even if it were a matter of international law or a signed treaty between member nations, the current US government has proven time and time again that they do not hold international laws and treaties as valid. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty has been completely undermined by the Bush government, and the constant refusal of the US to even obey the Geneva Convention is downright sickening.
3) Look around at other countries. Can you leave China freely because you feel like it? How about Cuba? Maybe on paper, but not in reality.
As someone who is neither citizen or resident of the USA, I've been watching it eat itself for nearly a decade now. Part of me understands your frustration and desire to give up on it all, and part of me has to ask, 'what makes you think we want you?'
No offense intended, but you've let your own country fall apart. Don't just assume that you can pack up and move somewhere else without asking first.
If you want to falsify a significant number of paper ballots, you have to create a significant amount of spurious paper. The physical reality of tonnes of paper makes it difficult to steal an election. Computers, on the other hand, are relatively untraceable. It doesn't matter how difficult it is, the end result is that once it has been hacked, it's no more difficult to increase the votes by one million than by one.
Sadly, this new announcement doesn't mean much for the 'old' SGI.
MIPS is gone. IRIX is gone. SGI is gone.
SGI has become another company that will create big commodity Linux boxes. Yeah, there's some cool technology behind it, courtesy of Cray (eventually you can track it back to them), but the things that made SGI special aren't there anymore.
FAR more likely is that in three centuries, the Great American Empire will be discussed about as much as most people talk about the Holy Roman Empire or the Enlightenment. That is, assuming there's anyone around to discuss matters at all.
The USA has a VERY SHORT time to change course dramatically, or they're going to doom themselves to a path of self-destruction. The sad thing is that they had so much promise as a nation, and also that they're going to take so much of the world down with them when they go.
Depending on just what you mean by 'in the same style...', you may be in luck. Adventure games haven't died--they've just moved to Europe. Syberia was gorgeous, and a pretty good game. The Longest Journey was an excellent game--in the same category as Grim Fandango, if not _quite_ up there. I'm playing Runaway right now, which is also quite good, and very much in the old LucasArts vein.
They're out there. You just have to look harder.
Re:No luck yet again for us OS X or Linux users
on
Sam and Max Hit the Road
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"Am I the only one who thinks it's insane to keep a 2nd computer with a different OS only to play some games?"
Maybe, maybe not.
The reality of the market is that games are written for Windows. If games are that important to you, then you run Windows. If Linux or MacOS or Solaris are that important to you, then you run that instead. If they're both important, then you run both. Your decision to make, not anybody else's.
First of all, I freely acknowledge that my post was an impractical rant. That said...
You seem to have missed the point I made about jurisdiction. That is a (the?) critical issue in stopping this crap. Here's the frustrating thing about it, though: It's a created barrier. That is, it's only a barrier because we have invented it, as a result of politics and laws and social structures. There is fundamentally nothing but inertia and fear (and potential economic repurcussions, which are a source of the inertia) that's preventing us from fixing this. Countries could get together and create joint international legislation. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good at limiting damage, and therefore incentive. Consider copyright laws. Even with copyright protection organisations (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) turning rabid, and with the most populous country on the planet barely pretending to follow international standards, most copyright abuses are prevented, as a result of international treaties and laws.
Finally although I realise you were being facetious in your cancer/AIDS comment, but I can't leave it alone. Diseases are difficult because of a lack of knowledge, and the non-deterministic nature (at least from our point of view) of biological systems. That said, I also know from personal experience that there's a lot of wasted time and money in the biotech/disease research field, due to the same damned problems: Jurisdiction, corporate privacy, and money.
Fundamentally, it just frustrates me that we're throwing up our hands and accepting defeat to a problem that is entirely invented and controllable.
The so-called botnet battle is no different than the war on spam or the anti-virus front, or any of the others.
It's not a failure of technology. It's BAD PEOPLE, exploiting BAD SOFTWARE, who aren't being dealt with because of BAD EXECUTION of BAD LAWS. Fix the software, the law, and the enforcement of the law (esp. jurisdiction), and you'll neutralise 95+% of the bad people.
This crap is criminal. Crimes like this are sheltered by discussions about philosophy, politics, jurisdiction, and technology. If people would stop discussing and arguing, and start working together on the problem, it could be eliminated in under 24 months.
But convincing people to work together is impossible, so we might as well get used to it.
I'd love to see all of the spam-fighting services go on strike for a week. DNS blackholes, spam filters, the works. Let spam flow uninterrupted. Let every user on the internet see just how bad spam really is. THAT would get some useful laws in place, and some criminals behind bars.
Unfortunately, too much of the IT economy is closely tied to fighting spam, and they can't afford to let that happen.
Ah now be careful. I didn't say we need neophytes to design our interfaces, but to audit them. Agreed, a neophyte-designed interface is likely to be horrible. However, put a neophyte in front of a product, and let them muck with it, with minimal instructions. After a while, they'll come up against a stumbling block, and ask for help. When you explain the solution to them, do they say, "oh that makes sense--I should have realised it;" or is their response, "What the hell kind of heroin addict came up with that idea?!" This can be very useful data, as long as its realised that it won't be perfect either.
Fundamentally, computer interfacees are completely abstract compared to the tasks you're trying to accomplish, and this isn't good. When you learn to ride a bike, you learn to balance. When you learn to cook, you learn to mix flavours and add heat. Driving is a bit more abstract, but the interface is pretty logical--turn the wheel left to go left, etc. In computers, if you want to (for example) add a filter to a picture, you click here, drag down to the menu, pull the slider over, and click 'apply.' None of that has anything to do with the basic premise of putting a filter on a picture.
Only one example, I know, but it's pretty much true through almost all computing.
Now before you flame too hard, keep in mind: Gnome...sucks. Vista...sucks. MacOS...sucks. CDE...still sucks.
User interface design is retarded. We need to get some complete computer neophytes to look at our interfaces, and point out the obvious blind spots we've created for ourselves.
Put another way: Computer user interfaces SUCK! The current set of 'innovations' are only innovative and progressive within the context of users (such as ourselves) who have rigorously trained ourselves to think like computers.
Nothing about computers is intelligent, elegant, or intuitive. Ironically enough, the command line interface is probably still the best thing we've got, beyond a certain level of complexity.
No computer interface--not a single one--deserves a celebration. Not until they figure out people think when they're not trying to think like computers.
As one person mentioned, in civil cases you throw everything you've got against the wall, and see what sticks. Regardless, what were the songs in question here? Is it some obscure indie band that maybe six people in the world listen to, or is it Madonna? If it's the latter (or something like), then it's entirely possible that he's got a CD and other people are sharing the songs.
Interesting point. Google may claim "do no evil," but they clearly act differently. They've become just as bad as any of the companies that they stood up against.
Want to spam usenet? Use a groups.google.com account. (daily, for three weeks nonstop.)
Amateur email spam? gmail.com is your friend.
Microsoft is worse by far--at least Google isn't working on illegally dominating the industry and destroying innovation. On the other hand, I'm not sure they're quite so hypocritical or pompous about it.
Don't know that much about Steam. Can I buy a game, download it, burn it to CD, and then never need to talk to them again?
If so, great. If not, they can pound sand.
Re:Not the job's fault? Uh, maybe?
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
Very well thought out post, and also fairly compassionate.
I'm facing a similar situation right now--My "official, billable" hours are gradually creeping above the 55/week mark, with 1-2hr/day extra. It's hurting my social life, hurting my hobbies, and could be hurting my marriage.
I've got enough confidence in my skills and abilities that I've said, 'enough is enough. Either we fix this together, or I walk.' My superiors want to keep me and have seen enough people burn out that they're working on fixing this with me--according to a relatively definite timeline.
But ten years ago when I first jumped into IT, or fifteen years ago when I was fresh out of University, I'm not sure I would have been sure enough of myself and my future to stand up to horrid conditions. If I'd started dating my wife before the Y2K crunch came along, would our relationship have worked? Hard to say.
Basically, it's easy to look back at such situations and know that you need to walk away. It's also easy to be young and believe that you'll recognise such a situation and walk away. It's really not all that easy when you're the guy in the middle of it, and you're facing down either a career or a marriage, knowing you can't take both of them home without serious changes. Financial security is a really strong incentive, and can drive a wedge between people far too easily.
However, the OP clearly recognises his problem. I suspect that a lot of the hostility here is that on a subconscious level, people are willing to allow mistakes like this when the subject is unaware, but once they KNOW what the problem is, failure to fix it seems a sign of weakness.
Whether it is, I can't say. All I know is that I'm now at the point where I'll take less money to spend more time with my wife.
Let's discuss freedom. I meant "free" as in, I don't have to pay any money for it. Nothing about the GPL makes software monetarily free vs. any other license, including closed source commercial. How much do you have to pay for IE, for instance?
Secondly, look at where it was on my list. People will PAY MONEY for CLOSED SOURCE software, if it works well, and they don't have to do any extra work. Compared to that benefit, the GPL and open-source philosophy are nothing more than vague annoyances to the average consumer.
Closed source wins because closed source provides support.
If I buy software from a vendor and it doesn't work properly, I'll nail their ass to a tree if they don't fix it. If I use open source software and it doesn't work, I can post to a forum and hope that someone will fix it, or hire a programmer to fix it in-house.
For small tools, for established tools, this is fine. For big and specialised tools, this doesn't fly. How much money will my company pay for a contractual guarantee of working software, when the 40 people who depend on that software for eight hours every day are driving $3bn/year in revenue? Let me tell you, $50k for software isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
As an aside, let's consider Red Hat. Guess what--if you buy support from them, they troll the newsgroups and developer forums when you report a bug. NOT acceptable for enterprise service.
"...in most cases, the software itself from a purely technical standpoint is awesome."
Hmm. More than a little bit optimistic, I'd say. Nonetheless, everything else in your article is spot-on. In fact, it was brilliant! Let me repeat two points, just because they deserve to be replayed in slow motion. (and one could be edited to the very core of the idea)
"Every time you take what you think is some kind of "stand," you're the only ones who care." "You're...helping to make the very scenario with...things that you fear more likely..."
Right on. Can I get an Amen brother?
Linux is actually a GOOD OS! Many of the related tools are GOOD TOOLS! Personality defects who stomp around, getting into pissing matches with other misfits about how free their code is (while neglecting such niceties as personal hygiene) drive normal people away from open source, and back into the waiting arms of Microsoft. The honest truth is that nobody gives a rat's ass about the license. They want a web browser and an office suite, they don't want to do any work for it (especially thinking!), and they'd like it to be free. Firefox is (a) one of these tools, (b) free, and (c) almost effort free. Licenses are irrelevant. Politics are irrelevant. Power is irrelevant (either the computing power required to run it, or the features and configurability of it). Just give them a web browser that's free, works on all web pages, and doesn't involve anything difficult like compiling or configuration.
Everything that doesn't fit this mold ultimately hurts the OSS world. Hell, it hurts the entire non-Microsoft world. Thanks for coming out, folks.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, lots of good advice has been put forth here already. One bit of it, I'll even repeat: If you need real ear protection, look at Etymotics.
That said, one of the points of a server room is that you should almost never be in it! Racking and wiring computers can take a while admittedly, but in our fairly large data centre (~10,000 ft^2), we probably have someone in the data centre maybe an hour a day, and that's spread across all groups (Unix, Intel, telecom, networking, backups, and building maintenance). I go down to the server room _maybe_ once a week to swap out a bad drive or something like.
If it's a one-time server room setup and install, I'd probably just suffer with the cheap earplugs. If you're spending that much time in the data centre after it's operational, you should definitely look at your policies and procedures, and see if you can change that.
If you're "sensitive to noise," then you should quit screwing around with foam earplugs.
Drop some cash ($100-$300) and get custom molded ones. They'll be more comfortable, easier to hear through, and generally better in all ways.
This is what intelligent rock musicians do. The not-so-intelligent ones just go deaf.
If I'm so dense, how come you're the one who believes I'm in the USA? I'm not.
Regarding the Covenant, that's not what you were talking about in your original post. You very clearly stated that because of the UN Universal Declaration, the US couldn't do this. My point was that that document did not make the US beholden to any particular behaviour.
Besides, you never did address the second point--that the USA is regularly and routinely breaking international treaties which they have signed. Basically, they'll do what they want, internally and externally.
"the human rights" you speak of is presumably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That leads to a number of holes in your bulletproof logic.
1) This is not a guarantee of any behaviour. In other words, this is not law, and not enforceable. In fact, if you read more than just one line of it, you'll see that it says:
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
In other words, it's a goal--a target for all nations. It's not a statement of fact, not a law, and not a treaty.
2) Even if it were a matter of international law or a signed treaty between member nations, the current US government has proven time and time again that they do not hold international laws and treaties as valid. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty has been completely undermined by the Bush government, and the constant refusal of the US to even obey the Geneva Convention is downright sickening.
3) Look around at other countries. Can you leave China freely because you feel like it? How about Cuba? Maybe on paper, but not in reality.
As someone who is neither citizen or resident of the USA, I've been watching it eat itself for nearly a decade now. Part of me understands your frustration and desire to give up on it all, and part of me has to ask, 'what makes you think we want you?'
No offense intended, but you've let your own country fall apart. Don't just assume that you can pack up and move somewhere else without asking first.
Amen.
If you want to falsify a significant number of paper ballots, you have to create a significant amount of spurious paper. The physical reality of tonnes of paper makes it difficult to steal an election.
Computers, on the other hand, are relatively untraceable. It doesn't matter how difficult it is, the end result is that once it has been hacked, it's no more difficult to increase the votes by one million than by one.
Sadly, this new announcement doesn't mean much for the 'old' SGI.
MIPS is gone.
IRIX is gone.
SGI is gone.
SGI has become another company that will create big commodity Linux boxes. Yeah, there's some cool technology behind it, courtesy of Cray (eventually you can track it back to them), but the things that made SGI special aren't there anymore.
Pity. Oh well, I wish 'em all the best.
Nah.
FAR more likely is that in three centuries, the Great American Empire will be discussed about as much as most people talk about the Holy Roman Empire or the Enlightenment. That is, assuming there's anyone around to discuss matters at all.
The USA has a VERY SHORT time to change course dramatically, or they're going to doom themselves to a path of self-destruction. The sad thing is that they had so much promise as a nation, and also that they're going to take so much of the world down with them when they go.
As opposed to a country that is threatening to destroy the world in a Holy War, and is slowly becoming more restrictive.
Sorry, but when did we start talking about the US again?
Ah yes. Iran. Nothing but retards there, eh? No intelligence at all, unlike, say, the USA.
Depending on just what you mean by 'in the same style...', you may be in luck.
Adventure games haven't died--they've just moved to Europe. Syberia was gorgeous, and a pretty good game. The Longest Journey was an excellent game--in the same category as Grim Fandango, if not _quite_ up there. I'm playing Runaway right now, which is also quite good, and very much in the old LucasArts vein.
They're out there. You just have to look harder.
"Am I the only one who thinks it's insane to keep a 2nd computer with a different OS only to play some games?"
Maybe, maybe not.
The reality of the market is that games are written for Windows. If games are that important to you, then you run Windows. If Linux or MacOS or Solaris are that important to you, then you run that instead. If they're both important, then you run both. Your decision to make, not anybody else's.
First of all, I freely acknowledge that my post was an impractical rant. That said...
You seem to have missed the point I made about jurisdiction. That is a (the?) critical issue in stopping this crap. Here's the frustrating thing about it, though: It's a created barrier. That is, it's only a barrier because we have invented it, as a result of politics and laws and social structures. There is fundamentally nothing but inertia and fear (and potential economic repurcussions, which are a source of the inertia) that's preventing us from fixing this. Countries could get together and create joint international legislation. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good at limiting damage, and therefore incentive. Consider copyright laws. Even with copyright protection organisations (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) turning rabid, and with the most populous country on the planet barely pretending to follow international standards, most copyright abuses are prevented, as a result of international treaties and laws.
Finally although I realise you were being facetious in your cancer/AIDS comment, but I can't leave it alone. Diseases are difficult because of a lack of knowledge, and the non-deterministic nature (at least from our point of view) of biological systems. That said, I also know from personal experience that there's a lot of wasted time and money in the biotech/disease research field, due to the same damned problems: Jurisdiction, corporate privacy, and money.
Fundamentally, it just frustrates me that we're throwing up our hands and accepting defeat to a problem that is entirely invented and controllable.
The so-called botnet battle is no different than the war on spam or the anti-virus front, or any of the others.
It's not a failure of technology. It's BAD PEOPLE, exploiting BAD SOFTWARE, who aren't being dealt with because of BAD EXECUTION of BAD LAWS. Fix the software, the law, and the enforcement of the law (esp. jurisdiction), and you'll neutralise 95+% of the bad people.
This crap is criminal. Crimes like this are sheltered by discussions about philosophy, politics, jurisdiction, and technology. If people would stop discussing and arguing, and start working together on the problem, it could be eliminated in under 24 months.
But convincing people to work together is impossible, so we might as well get used to it.
I'd love to see all of the spam-fighting services go on strike for a week. DNS blackholes, spam filters, the works. Let spam flow uninterrupted. Let every user on the internet see just how bad spam really is. THAT would get some useful laws in place, and some criminals behind bars.
Unfortunately, too much of the IT economy is closely tied to fighting spam, and they can't afford to let that happen.
Ah now be careful. I didn't say we need neophytes to design our interfaces, but to audit them. Agreed, a neophyte-designed interface is likely to be horrible. However, put a neophyte in front of a product, and let them muck with it, with minimal instructions. After a while, they'll come up against a stumbling block, and ask for help. When you explain the solution to them, do they say, "oh that makes sense--I should have realised it;" or is their response, "What the hell kind of heroin addict came up with that idea?!" This can be very useful data, as long as its realised that it won't be perfect either.
Fundamentally, computer interfacees are completely abstract compared to the tasks you're trying to accomplish, and this isn't good. When you learn to ride a bike, you learn to balance. When you learn to cook, you learn to mix flavours and add heat. Driving is a bit more abstract, but the interface is pretty logical--turn the wheel left to go left, etc. In computers, if you want to (for example) add a filter to a picture, you click here, drag down to the menu, pull the slider over, and click 'apply.' None of that has anything to do with the basic premise of putting a filter on a picture.
Only one example, I know, but it's pretty much true through almost all computing.
Now before you flame too hard, keep in mind:
Gnome...sucks.
Vista...sucks.
MacOS...sucks.
CDE...still sucks.
User interface design is retarded. We need to get some complete computer neophytes to look at our interfaces, and point out the obvious blind spots we've created for ourselves.
Put another way: Computer user interfaces SUCK! The current set of 'innovations' are only innovative and progressive within the context of users (such as ourselves) who have rigorously trained ourselves to think like computers.
Nothing about computers is intelligent, elegant, or intuitive. Ironically enough, the command line interface is probably still the best thing we've got, beyond a certain level of complexity.
No computer interface--not a single one--deserves a celebration. Not until they figure out people think when they're not trying to think like computers.
As one person mentioned, in civil cases you throw everything you've got against the wall, and see what sticks.
Regardless, what were the songs in question here? Is it some obscure indie band that maybe six people in the world listen to, or is it Madonna? If it's the latter (or something like), then it's entirely possible that he's got a CD and other people are sharing the songs.
Interesting point. Google may claim "do no evil," but they clearly act differently. They've become just as bad as any of the companies that they stood up against.
Want to spam usenet? Use a groups.google.com account. (daily, for three weeks nonstop.)
Amateur email spam? gmail.com is your friend.
Microsoft is worse by far--at least Google isn't working on illegally dominating the industry and destroying innovation. On the other hand, I'm not sure they're quite so hypocritical or pompous about it.
They both suck. Like all computer companies.
Don't know that much about Steam. Can I buy a game, download it, burn it to CD, and then never need to talk to them again?
If so, great.
If not, they can pound sand.
Very well thought out post, and also fairly compassionate.
I'm facing a similar situation right now--My "official, billable" hours are gradually creeping above the 55/week mark, with 1-2hr/day extra. It's hurting my social life, hurting my hobbies, and could be hurting my marriage.
I've got enough confidence in my skills and abilities that I've said, 'enough is enough. Either we fix this together, or I walk.' My superiors want to keep me and have seen enough people burn out that they're working on fixing this with me--according to a relatively definite timeline.
But ten years ago when I first jumped into IT, or fifteen years ago when I was fresh out of University, I'm not sure I would have been sure enough of myself and my future to stand up to horrid conditions. If I'd started dating my wife before the Y2K crunch came along, would our relationship have worked? Hard to say.
Basically, it's easy to look back at such situations and know that you need to walk away. It's also easy to be young and believe that you'll recognise such a situation and walk away. It's really not all that easy when you're the guy in the middle of it, and you're facing down either a career or a marriage, knowing you can't take both of them home without serious changes. Financial security is a really strong incentive, and can drive a wedge between people far too easily.
However, the OP clearly recognises his problem. I suspect that a lot of the hostility here is that on a subconscious level, people are willing to allow mistakes like this when the subject is unaware, but once they KNOW what the problem is, failure to fix it seems a sign of weakness.
Whether it is, I can't say. All I know is that I'm now at the point where I'll take less money to spend more time with my wife.
Let's discuss freedom. I meant "free" as in, I don't have to pay any money for it. Nothing about the GPL makes software monetarily free vs. any other license, including closed source commercial. How much do you have to pay for IE, for instance?
Secondly, look at where it was on my list. People will PAY MONEY for CLOSED SOURCE software, if it works well, and they don't have to do any extra work. Compared to that benefit, the GPL and open-source philosophy are nothing more than vague annoyances to the average consumer.
I've got one. Apparently Debian doesn't think it's open enough. Sucks to be them.
At any rate, the technological goal is never that important, compared to the political one.
Closed source wins because closed source provides support.
If I buy software from a vendor and it doesn't work properly, I'll nail their ass to a tree if they don't fix it. If I use open source software and it doesn't work, I can post to a forum and hope that someone will fix it, or hire a programmer to fix it in-house.
For small tools, for established tools, this is fine. For big and specialised tools, this doesn't fly. How much money will my company pay for a contractual guarantee of working software, when the 40 people who depend on that software for eight hours every day are driving $3bn/year in revenue? Let me tell you, $50k for software isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
As an aside, let's consider Red Hat. Guess what--if you buy support from them, they troll the newsgroups and developer forums when you report a bug. NOT acceptable for enterprise service.
"...in most cases, the software itself from a purely technical standpoint is awesome."
Hmm. More than a little bit optimistic, I'd say. Nonetheless, everything else in your article is spot-on. In fact, it was brilliant! Let me repeat two points, just because they deserve to be replayed in slow motion. (and one could be edited to the very core of the idea)
"Every time you take what you think is some kind of "stand," you're the only ones who care."
"You're...helping to make the very scenario with...things that you fear more likely..."
Right on. Can I get an Amen brother?
Linux is actually a GOOD OS! Many of the related tools are GOOD TOOLS! Personality defects who stomp around, getting into pissing matches with other misfits about how free their code is (while neglecting such niceties as personal hygiene) drive normal people away from open source, and back into the waiting arms of Microsoft. The honest truth is that nobody gives a rat's ass about the license. They want a web browser and an office suite, they don't want to do any work for it (especially thinking!), and they'd like it to be free. Firefox is (a) one of these tools, (b) free, and (c) almost effort free. Licenses are irrelevant. Politics are irrelevant. Power is irrelevant (either the computing power required to run it, or the features and configurability of it). Just give them a web browser that's free, works on all web pages, and doesn't involve anything difficult like compiling or configuration.
Everything that doesn't fit this mold ultimately hurts the OSS world. Hell, it hurts the entire non-Microsoft world. Thanks for coming out, folks.