There are loads of ways to make people want to go to the theaters rather then pirate the film. For example, the theater could be much more technically advanced compared to the average person with a 50 inch plasma screen, HD rips and surround sound, but, my local theater is worse than staying at home and watching a movie on my own TV. Theres no one with crying babies, the floor isn't sticky, I can have reasonably priced refreshments rather than paying $3 for a coke, and I don't have to worry about my seat falling off. Add in some obvious benefits of owning a movie such as being able to pause, rewatch and format-shift the movie and you see that theres no real advantage to going to the theater. If the film industry would start making high-tech theaters, and better theaters that actually offer advantages to watching a pirated movie then people would go more often. Also, if they would simultaneously (or a delay of no longer than 3 days) release a non-HD DVD of the movie lacking any sort of special features the same day it was released in these nice theaters, then they would have more people buying the movie. And then after the movie was done in theaters it would be released on Blu-Ray and DVD with upgraded quality and special features.
If you can't compete on price, compete on quality. If a pirated movie is going to give me a better experience then going to the theater, the choice for an informed consumer is obvious.
One of the main problems of Wikipedia is it has firm guidelines on what it is and what it is not. There is a ton of information that could be released on Wikipedia but isn't because it isn't 100% verifiable or contains "specialty information". Now, I see where the editors are coming from, but similarly, for the average person interested in something (say a video game) there isn't any one major source of information about each one other than Wikipedia. Sure, you can find loads of reviews, a few walkthroughs, all the gameshark codes you want, and perhaps even a ROM or two of it. But as for real information on the game, that goes beyond that, you have to sort through mountains of Google searches with no real way that you can easily find it. Stuff like that I believe belongs on Wikipedia but keeps getting taken down from editors.
Sure, I have no objection to vandalism being taken down, but the biggest flaw I see in Wikipedia is a lot of content gets deleted for no reason (face it, storage and bandwidth is dirt cheap).
Yes, but show me a Linux virus or other form of malware that would affect a stupid user? Now this being a stupid user, they aren't A) going to compile anything B) chmod +rwx a binary or even allow it to execute it as a program unless it asks C) Install most software from Ubuntu repositories D) not going to touch the terminal.
From there, about the only thing would be a malicious DEB file, and if those became widespread it would be trivial for Ubuntu or any other distro to block those few malicious programs, close the security holes, etc.
Sure, no system is 100% secure, drive-by-downloads don't harm Linux, there is no major virus or worm out, security holes are patched reasonably quickly, and there are multiple versions. So honestly, a stupid user that uses Linux has about a.000001% of compromising their box*
*This is assuming that some script kiddy or cracker doesn't specifically target their box, the system is reasonably up-to-date, no random server programs when they are not needed and there are no compromised machines on the local network attempting to get in.
But do the ISPs care? Any time you manage to get halfway decent speeds the ISPs regulate it with hidden caps, throttled downloads, blocked ports, etc. That doesn't change no matter who uses the most bandwidth.
Yes, most people prefer control to violence, but if I'm playing Call of Duty when I'm in a war, I don't want people to just "faint" get transported back to base, etc. People die in wars, people bleed in wars, heck, people even swear in wars. I don't want to hit someone with a grenade and them just to be transported somewhere. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I would like it if whenever Mario stomps on an enemy for blood to be gushing out of it because it doesn't fit the mood.
You mean like AJAX? The problem with AJAX is that some browser developers (read: MS) can't be bothered to implement standards. So we have to have the same browser developer develop Silverlight in order to fix a flaw caused by MS's negligence. Now, Silverlight will be better than AJAX for a few things (video streaming, more native-style applications), but then there is Flash for that.
That means, on average, out of 100 people, 1 uses linux, 9 use MacOS, 2 use another OS and 88 use Windows.
Ok, explain to me the 2% that other desktop OSes have. Out of all the alternative OSes, Plan 9, BSD, etc. all of them combined do not equal 2%. Now, you could be comparing device OSes but that kinda skews the data a bit because the person who uses the iPhone OS is going to use a different OS for computing needs.
Secondly, where did you get these figures from? Websites usually have a certain slant to them, for example, Distro Watch is going to be visited by a higher proportion of Linux users than who usually use Linux, just as a Microsoft Knowledge base article will under represent non-Windows platforms. Similarly, a Mac-focused blog is going to get more OS X users than Windows/Linux users.
But the thing is, it is completely hard-coded in. For example, I won't complain if the largest file I can have on my hard drive is 300 GB because that is the limitations on the filesystem, however, if I could only have a 2 GB file unless I paid $50 for the "improved edition" I would complain loudly.
Secondly, this is a major lock in for MS. If by using Firefox, VLC, and a third-party game you can exceede your app limit, but if you use IE, Windows Media Player and some built-in Windows game, you don't. This is especially worrying in the developing countries where this will be sold.
MS needs R&D as a productive output to its funds. If MS were to buy a successful company, there is little doubt that regulators in the EU would shoot it down, MS has about 95% of the OS market so it can't exactly grow much, Google has cornered the online market and MS's tactics have been failing miserably, the Xbox is nice but is losing to the Wii and has almost no hope of catching up (unless suddenly the Wii gets the RRoD, and Blu-Ray somehow gets replaced by HD-DVD) , MS can't really innovate in Office because businesses will reject change, and the Zune is a pathetic copy of the iPod (especially when compared to the touch and iPhone). So really, MS has no output of funds other than R&D, Apple on the other hand needed every penny it could get.
It seems that MS has managed to work itself into a stalemate. On one hand it must keep evolving and changing to attempt to be better than Linux and Apple, but on the other hand it has to keep regulations into check to not become even more monopolistic. R&D is about the only output that MS can put its profits into to keep regulators at bay and still grow its business.
Gamers. Sure, most would rather go out and buy a totally new box, but if someone just wanted to upgrade a CPU, AMD would let them do it. It may seem illogical for hardware vendors to target a small portion of the hardware buying community, but both AMD and Intel are trying their best to get the gamer's money.
Yes, but hasn't it already been proven that just because a site in one jurisdiction allows viewers from another jurisdiction they can't be charged because the other jurisdiction forbids the content thats legal in the first jurisdiction?
Yes, because the financial penalties for commiting crimes are always the same as the effect of the crime.
No, but honestly they should be.
If one values the song at $1 and one violates the copyright laws and "shares" it with 10,000 other people, the effect of the crime is a $10,000 in revenue had those same 10,000 people bought the song.
Yes, but show me in any of the RIAA's lawsuits that it can be solidly proven that someone shared a song with 10,000 other people. You can't.
When one robs a bank, one is put in put in jail and often given a fine of many thousands of dollars. The average bank robbery take is less than $5000.00.
Yes, but, the cost in equipment damages (such as broken glass, etc), people who had their human rights violated (not to feel threatened), etc. Usually justify the penalties. On the other hand, no human rights are violated, minimal profit is "lost", it is non violent, no one possibly gets injured, there is no loss to the original product, etc.
You are just a pathetic, greedy, little pig who thinks because something is good for you, it should be OK, regardless of if it is bad for anyone or everyone else.
No, I am simply someone who values freedom and has a dose of sanity.
So, if the ends justify the means, I can kill you for being stupid because the ends ( cleaner gene pool and a greater chance of survival for the human race) justifies the means (putting a bullet in your head), right?
No, because you are violating human rights by killing someone, and hurting (or killing) someone. Something that is wrong by almost every moral and logical standard for everyone.
Also, since there's really not a lot of difference between BSD and Mac, hardcore linux users can easily partition and install BSD instead and run a modified version of the Mac program. What's one more distro to install?
Your joking right? While it is true that BSD and OS X share the same basic system and a lot of lower-level tools are the same (just fire up the terminal.app on OS X and see what I mean), but for anything more than the basic kernel things are very, very different. For one, it would undoubtedly require porting Coco, Quartz, and other graphics libraries to BSD which is harder than it looks (not to mention copyrighted) and emulating other Mac libraries. For all of these in order to (simi-legally) be run on BSD, you have to have OS X, if you have OS X then why not just use the Mac client?
I didn't realize the conversation was limited to the U.S.
No, but even with most of the western countries (theres no way China or India will give up their advantages) with it, other countries will make up for it and we will end up heading behind.
As I just said above, why are corporations so wildly enthusiastic about "Green IT?" Because they suddenly grew a consciousness... or because they want to save money?
Well, most "green IT" is more or less a buzzword that means essentially nothing, the same way that "netbooks" are being more popular even when some of these netbooks are nothing more then lower end notebook computers. However, Solar Panels, Hydrogen Cells, Nuclear and even Wind Power are more expensive then their oil/gas based counterparts. Perhaps not in the long run, but currently if your company is heading towards bankruptcy, paying little a month that adds up is a lot less painful then spending a millions on alternative energy that will eventually reduce your bills.
Not to mention as another poster pointed out that most rare minerals are mined in only a few locations because it isn't yet profitable to mine in other locations, when we start (really) running out, there will be more surveys and more of the metal will be found.
No. Even if all of the USA were to cut back 75%, China and India would easily take our 75% of energy. And face it, China and India are growing in economic power, meanwhile the western nations who are trying to conserve energy are epically failing. Conserving energy does nothing more than put the nation back a few decades in technology.
Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.
Um, yes they do. If no one was harmed, it should not be illegal and "piracy" doesn't hurt anyone either financially or physically. Think of "piracy" as radio today, it serves to promote the band so they can make good sales on their concerts which are the primary means that artists get money. A copy of a file does not delete, alter or otherwise distort the original nor does it make it work any less. For example, if I set the Mona Lisa as my desktop background, does the actual painting devalue itself? No, because thats not how art works.
Downloading music illegitimately only hurts the record companies. Now, you might think that the record companies deserve a cut of the profits, however, in this digital age, its akin to preventing the release of cars because a saddlemaker might lose some money. The record company is dead. Saying that by going to a different distributer rather than the record company to get music is stealing, then I steal on a daily basis when I look at a computer in a store but decide to buy the same model from a different site.
Then there is the fact of the insane laws that can charge almost $10,000 for downloading and sharing a single song. These laws that allow for outrageous copyright claims to be made need to be abolished. If you got caught stealing a physical CD from Wal-Mart and you weren't running away, I'm sure that paying Wal-Mart three times the price of the CD would be good enough to set you free with little to no criminal charges.
The problem is, they don't care. How many candidates have you seen that actually have a sane copyright platform (excluding the Pirate Party)? The answer is zero. Copyright just isn't a major platform for them, and if the *AA can claim how much money is being "lost" due to "piracy" they will vote for stronger copyright. Very few elected officials understand the internet, computers and the devastating effect things such as the DMCA have on the US economy. Even our "tech savvy" president Obama doesn't seem to have a clue about how dangerous our current copyright laws are. Elected officials only see made-up stats on how much "piracy" is "costing" the *AA, and they see no reason to weaken copyright laws because they don't understand how things work on the internet or how computers in general work.
Ok, so if these computers were used solely for official business, there wouldn't be this big of an issue. Lower paid workers tend not to have computers or internet at home, so they use work systems for "surfing." No internet access and email should only be via highly filtered webmail. USB, DVD drives and floppies locked off with zero access.
I can see this being a major no-go with the employees. What happens when they need to legitimately look up something on the web for their job? No CDs or USB drives can also be a major problem, what happens when the e-mail server is down for maintenance and someone needs to send a file? Etc.
The most logical solution would be Linux. Sure, no system is 100% secure, but show me a single major virus/worm outbreak on Linux that an ordinary (as in, not administrator) would be able to be infected with. The fact is, for all intents and purposes, Linux is ultra-secure, the virus in your inbox isn't going to run on it normally (now, if you wanted to run it in WINE, recompile it, etc it might) nor is plugging in an infected USB drive going to do anything. Yes, user error on Linux does occur, but unless the secretary is constantly in the Terminal, theres not much she can really mess up even if she desperately wants a puppy screensaver and the Simpsons as her mouse cursor.
Yes, some might say that Linux doesn't have all the business stuff yet, however, this being the government and being paid with by our tax dollars, surely they can use some of that 700 billion stimulus package to pay some coders to write what they want (and then of course release the source). But seriously, this would not have happened if Houston had been using Linux as the OS of choice.
Yes, thats true and a good sysadmin should be checking the logs, but reporting threats that aren't a major issue can make a computer-illiterate CEO think that it was your fault for the security breaches, a major outbreak of malware though is very easy to blame on "hackers", "pirates" and anything else you want to lay the blame on.
This is the US Government we are talking about, if they have the spare cash to throw away billions of dollars in taxpayer money in cooperate bailout/stimulus money, I'm sure they have enough money to improve OSS. Heck, just take about half what they spend in software licenses and use that to further OSS, sounds like a good trade-off doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
There are loads of ways to make people want to go to the theaters rather then pirate the film. For example, the theater could be much more technically advanced compared to the average person with a 50 inch plasma screen, HD rips and surround sound, but, my local theater is worse than staying at home and watching a movie on my own TV. Theres no one with crying babies, the floor isn't sticky, I can have reasonably priced refreshments rather than paying $3 for a coke, and I don't have to worry about my seat falling off. Add in some obvious benefits of owning a movie such as being able to pause, rewatch and format-shift the movie and you see that theres no real advantage to going to the theater. If the film industry would start making high-tech theaters, and better theaters that actually offer advantages to watching a pirated movie then people would go more often. Also, if they would simultaneously (or a delay of no longer than 3 days) release a non-HD DVD of the movie lacking any sort of special features the same day it was released in these nice theaters, then they would have more people buying the movie. And then after the movie was done in theaters it would be released on Blu-Ray and DVD with upgraded quality and special features.
If you can't compete on price, compete on quality. If a pirated movie is going to give me a better experience then going to the theater, the choice for an informed consumer is obvious.
One of the main problems of Wikipedia is it has firm guidelines on what it is and what it is not. There is a ton of information that could be released on Wikipedia but isn't because it isn't 100% verifiable or contains "specialty information". Now, I see where the editors are coming from, but similarly, for the average person interested in something (say a video game) there isn't any one major source of information about each one other than Wikipedia. Sure, you can find loads of reviews, a few walkthroughs, all the gameshark codes you want, and perhaps even a ROM or two of it. But as for real information on the game, that goes beyond that, you have to sort through mountains of Google searches with no real way that you can easily find it. Stuff like that I believe belongs on Wikipedia but keeps getting taken down from editors.
Sure, I have no objection to vandalism being taken down, but the biggest flaw I see in Wikipedia is a lot of content gets deleted for no reason (face it, storage and bandwidth is dirt cheap).
Yes, but show me a Linux virus or other form of malware that would affect a stupid user? Now this being a stupid user, they aren't A) going to compile anything B) chmod +rwx a binary or even allow it to execute it as a program unless it asks C) Install most software from Ubuntu repositories D) not going to touch the terminal.
.000001% of compromising their box*
From there, about the only thing would be a malicious DEB file, and if those became widespread it would be trivial for Ubuntu or any other distro to block those few malicious programs, close the security holes, etc.
Sure, no system is 100% secure, drive-by-downloads don't harm Linux, there is no major virus or worm out, security holes are patched reasonably quickly, and there are multiple versions. So honestly, a stupid user that uses Linux has about a
*This is assuming that some script kiddy or cracker doesn't specifically target their box, the system is reasonably up-to-date, no random server programs when they are not needed and there are no compromised machines on the local network attempting to get in.
But do the ISPs care? Any time you manage to get halfway decent speeds the ISPs regulate it with hidden caps, throttled downloads, blocked ports, etc. That doesn't change no matter who uses the most bandwidth.
Yes, most people prefer control to violence, but if I'm playing Call of Duty when I'm in a war, I don't want people to just "faint" get transported back to base, etc. People die in wars, people bleed in wars, heck, people even swear in wars. I don't want to hit someone with a grenade and them just to be transported somewhere. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I would like it if whenever Mario stomps on an enemy for blood to be gushing out of it because it doesn't fit the mood.
You mean like AJAX? The problem with AJAX is that some browser developers (read: MS) can't be bothered to implement standards. So we have to have the same browser developer develop Silverlight in order to fix a flaw caused by MS's negligence. Now, Silverlight will be better than AJAX for a few things (video streaming, more native-style applications), but then there is Flash for that.
But the parent I was posting to said that Antiviruses, Firewalls, Windows components and Microsoft Software was exempt from the rule.
That means, on average, out of 100 people, 1 uses linux, 9 use MacOS, 2 use another OS and 88 use Windows.
Ok, explain to me the 2% that other desktop OSes have. Out of all the alternative OSes, Plan 9, BSD, etc. all of them combined do not equal 2%. Now, you could be comparing device OSes but that kinda skews the data a bit because the person who uses the iPhone OS is going to use a different OS for computing needs.
Secondly, where did you get these figures from? Websites usually have a certain slant to them, for example, Distro Watch is going to be visited by a higher proportion of Linux users than who usually use Linux, just as a Microsoft Knowledge base article will under represent non-Windows platforms. Similarly, a Mac-focused blog is going to get more OS X users than Windows/Linux users.
I guess you have never tried it, I could recommend some distros that are on very mature and dont require you to learn command lines to use.
http://www.gentoo.org/
So out of all the user friendly distros you pick... Gentoo?
But the thing is, it is completely hard-coded in. For example, I won't complain if the largest file I can have on my hard drive is 300 GB because that is the limitations on the filesystem, however, if I could only have a 2 GB file unless I paid $50 for the "improved edition" I would complain loudly.
Secondly, this is a major lock in for MS. If by using Firefox, VLC, and a third-party game you can exceede your app limit, but if you use IE, Windows Media Player and some built-in Windows game, you don't. This is especially worrying in the developing countries where this will be sold.
MS needs R&D as a productive output to its funds. If MS were to buy a successful company, there is little doubt that regulators in the EU would shoot it down, MS has about 95% of the OS market so it can't exactly grow much, Google has cornered the online market and MS's tactics have been failing miserably, the Xbox is nice but is losing to the Wii and has almost no hope of catching up (unless suddenly the Wii gets the RRoD, and Blu-Ray somehow gets replaced by HD-DVD) , MS can't really innovate in Office because businesses will reject change, and the Zune is a pathetic copy of the iPod (especially when compared to the touch and iPhone). So really, MS has no output of funds other than R&D, Apple on the other hand needed every penny it could get.
It seems that MS has managed to work itself into a stalemate. On one hand it must keep evolving and changing to attempt to be better than Linux and Apple, but on the other hand it has to keep regulations into check to not become even more monopolistic. R&D is about the only output that MS can put its profits into to keep regulators at bay and still grow its business.
Gamers. Sure, most would rather go out and buy a totally new box, but if someone just wanted to upgrade a CPU, AMD would let them do it. It may seem illogical for hardware vendors to target a small portion of the hardware buying community, but both AMD and Intel are trying their best to get the gamer's money.
Yes, but hasn't it already been proven that just because a site in one jurisdiction allows viewers from another jurisdiction they can't be charged because the other jurisdiction forbids the content thats legal in the first jurisdiction?
Yes, because the financial penalties for commiting crimes are always the same as the effect of the crime.
No, but honestly they should be.
If one values the song at $1 and one violates the copyright laws and "shares" it with 10,000 other people, the effect of the crime is a $10,000 in revenue had those same 10,000 people bought the song.
Yes, but show me in any of the RIAA's lawsuits that it can be solidly proven that someone shared a song with 10,000 other people. You can't.
When one robs a bank, one is put in put in jail and often given a fine of many thousands of dollars. The average bank robbery take is less than $5000.00.
Yes, but, the cost in equipment damages (such as broken glass, etc), people who had their human rights violated (not to feel threatened), etc. Usually justify the penalties. On the other hand, no human rights are violated, minimal profit is "lost", it is non violent, no one possibly gets injured, there is no loss to the original product, etc.
You are just a pathetic, greedy, little pig who thinks because something is good for you, it should be OK, regardless of if it is bad for anyone or everyone else.
No, I am simply someone who values freedom and has a dose of sanity.
So, if the ends justify the means, I can kill you for being stupid because the ends ( cleaner gene pool and a greater chance of survival for the human race) justifies the means (putting a bullet in your head), right?
No, because you are violating human rights by killing someone, and hurting (or killing) someone. Something that is wrong by almost every moral and logical standard for everyone.
Also, since there's really not a lot of difference between BSD and Mac, hardcore linux users can easily partition and install BSD instead and run a modified version of the Mac program. What's one more distro to install?
Your joking right? While it is true that BSD and OS X share the same basic system and a lot of lower-level tools are the same (just fire up the terminal.app on OS X and see what I mean), but for anything more than the basic kernel things are very, very different. For one, it would undoubtedly require porting Coco, Quartz, and other graphics libraries to BSD which is harder than it looks (not to mention copyrighted) and emulating other Mac libraries. For all of these in order to (simi-legally) be run on BSD, you have to have OS X, if you have OS X then why not just use the Mac client?
I didn't realize the conversation was limited to the U.S.
No, but even with most of the western countries (theres no way China or India will give up their advantages) with it, other countries will make up for it and we will end up heading behind.
As I just said above, why are corporations so wildly enthusiastic about "Green IT?" Because they suddenly grew a consciousness... or because they want to save money?
Well, most "green IT" is more or less a buzzword that means essentially nothing, the same way that "netbooks" are being more popular even when some of these netbooks are nothing more then lower end notebook computers. However, Solar Panels, Hydrogen Cells, Nuclear and even Wind Power are more expensive then their oil/gas based counterparts. Perhaps not in the long run, but currently if your company is heading towards bankruptcy, paying little a month that adds up is a lot less painful then spending a millions on alternative energy that will eventually reduce your bills.
Not to mention as another poster pointed out that most rare minerals are mined in only a few locations because it isn't yet profitable to mine in other locations, when we start (really) running out, there will be more surveys and more of the metal will be found.
Is that Vista or Windows 7
*ducks*
No. Even if all of the USA were to cut back 75%, China and India would easily take our 75% of energy. And face it, China and India are growing in economic power, meanwhile the western nations who are trying to conserve energy are epically failing. Conserving energy does nothing more than put the nation back a few decades in technology.
Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.
Um, yes they do. If no one was harmed, it should not be illegal and "piracy" doesn't hurt anyone either financially or physically. Think of "piracy" as radio today, it serves to promote the band so they can make good sales on their concerts which are the primary means that artists get money. A copy of a file does not delete, alter or otherwise distort the original nor does it make it work any less. For example, if I set the Mona Lisa as my desktop background, does the actual painting devalue itself? No, because thats not how art works.
Downloading music illegitimately only hurts the record companies. Now, you might think that the record companies deserve a cut of the profits, however, in this digital age, its akin to preventing the release of cars because a saddlemaker might lose some money. The record company is dead. Saying that by going to a different distributer rather than the record company to get music is stealing, then I steal on a daily basis when I look at a computer in a store but decide to buy the same model from a different site.
Then there is the fact of the insane laws that can charge almost $10,000 for downloading and sharing a single song. These laws that allow for outrageous copyright claims to be made need to be abolished. If you got caught stealing a physical CD from Wal-Mart and you weren't running away, I'm sure that paying Wal-Mart three times the price of the CD would be good enough to set you free with little to no criminal charges.
The problem is, they don't care. How many candidates have you seen that actually have a sane copyright platform (excluding the Pirate Party)? The answer is zero. Copyright just isn't a major platform for them, and if the *AA can claim how much money is being "lost" due to "piracy" they will vote for stronger copyright. Very few elected officials understand the internet, computers and the devastating effect things such as the DMCA have on the US economy. Even our "tech savvy" president Obama doesn't seem to have a clue about how dangerous our current copyright laws are. Elected officials only see made-up stats on how much "piracy" is "costing" the *AA, and they see no reason to weaken copyright laws because they don't understand how things work on the internet or how computers in general work.
Ok, so if these computers were used solely for official business, there wouldn't be this big of an issue. Lower paid workers tend not to have computers or internet at home, so they use work systems for "surfing." No internet access and email should only be via highly filtered webmail. USB, DVD drives and floppies locked off with zero access.
I can see this being a major no-go with the employees. What happens when they need to legitimately look up something on the web for their job? No CDs or USB drives can also be a major problem, what happens when the e-mail server is down for maintenance and someone needs to send a file? Etc.
The most logical solution would be Linux. Sure, no system is 100% secure, but show me a single major virus/worm outbreak on Linux that an ordinary (as in, not administrator) would be able to be infected with. The fact is, for all intents and purposes, Linux is ultra-secure, the virus in your inbox isn't going to run on it normally (now, if you wanted to run it in WINE, recompile it, etc it might) nor is plugging in an infected USB drive going to do anything. Yes, user error on Linux does occur, but unless the secretary is constantly in the Terminal, theres not much she can really mess up even if she desperately wants a puppy screensaver and the Simpsons as her mouse cursor.
Yes, some might say that Linux doesn't have all the business stuff yet, however, this being the government and being paid with by our tax dollars, surely they can use some of that 700 billion stimulus package to pay some coders to write what they want (and then of course release the source). But seriously, this would not have happened if Houston had been using Linux as the OS of choice.
Yes, thats true and a good sysadmin should be checking the logs, but reporting threats that aren't a major issue can make a computer-illiterate CEO think that it was your fault for the security breaches, a major outbreak of malware though is very easy to blame on "hackers", "pirates" and anything else you want to lay the blame on.
This is the US Government we are talking about, if they have the spare cash to throw away billions of dollars in taxpayer money in cooperate bailout/stimulus money, I'm sure they have enough money to improve OSS. Heck, just take about half what they spend in software licenses and use that to further OSS, sounds like a good trade-off doesn't it?