What Red Hat did in the past is not as important as what they are doing now. If you want to judge by history, then honestly judge them with the histories other software companies who exhibited the same behaviors. The inevitable conclusion cannot be a positive one -- especially concerning a company hoping to survive in the realm of Linux. It is hypocritical to claim Red Hat is doing something acceptable while holding other companies to higher standards. Stating they've contributed this and that to Linux; and so Red Hat's behavior is okay is the point. If they were doing nothing wrong, then why must they be apologetically defended using their goodwill credits from the past? Those credits are being spent fast. The fact that so many of you parade them as being a great community member despite their having announced at sites such as News.com their intention of abandoning us demonstrates clearly the degree of denial. In fact, Red Hat doesn't even bother to make announcements at Linux sites anymore -- too many "free loaders" like us after all. This great community member no longer has time for you unless you spend most of your day "touching base" on conference calls concerning the people who actually work for a living. On their mailing lists, they've literally been laughing at the fact people who try to build from their sources will get "pieces". "If it breaks you get to keep the pieces" to be exact about one of them. It sure is funny, isn't it? Surely that doesn't suggest what it sounds like, right? Go read for yourself, for it is guaranteed to outrage. The statement that other distributors will feel empowered to take the same actions is exactly what should chill everyone to the bone.
I loved RH too. There comes a time when we must move on, and bury our lost friends. I'll miss them, but I will not live lies if that is required to keep them alive.
The originator of this idea should be identified, and so should any cases of "prior art". Before using this idea make sure that the originator of it disclaims all "intellectual property" rights to it; or people using the idea will pay dearly in the future. History has taugh us to avoid these traps.
Free expession now requires that one have a lawyer present.
The sort of childish behavior which is reported to have come from this project is exactly the ammunition desired by those trying to label all of us as "fanatical zealots". In short, this project is a disgrace to the greater community.
Let me quickly point out something: Red Hat Software has done a hell-of-a-lot more for free/OSS (and particularly Linux) than the developers in question have ever done.
Unless someone can prove that Windows has a secret "Disable third-party software" function, I just don't see the problem.
Of course, Microsoft will make certain that no one who hasn't signed a NDA ever sees such things. In fact, it is what makes the concept of open source so dangerous for them. With open source, nothing can remain hidden. Nevertheless, here is an example for you below. You could find others if you really cared for the truth.
"You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there a feature they have that might get in our way?"
-- Bill Gates
"...The ignorance of some posters suprises even me..."
"..I am so tired of juveniles trashing Win2K. They ramble on about Linux being more secure but I don't think so. Tell me *please* how to implement IPSec with Linux..."
Yes.. Those "ignorant" people who do not appreciate Microsoft's innovations are annoying. You might find the following IPSec link very educational:
There have been quite a few people here to suggest that Windows is obviously more secure than Linux because the NSA never forked the Windows as it did the Linux Kernel. Their logic is full of holes.
1 - None of these posters actually documented that the NSA really does have full access to the code. Should we just take their word for it?
2 - What if they are indeed given access, but the access is under the "Shared Source" terms in which the technologists are told basically: "you can look but you can't touch"?
3 - Has anyone contemplated the legal ramifications of altering the Windows source even if Microsoft's contract suggested that it were allowed: which is very doubtful?
4 - Any open copy of Windows is invalidated by the persistent and required security patches. Open source means nothing if upgrades are required, but these updates are closed.
5 - Does any have proof that the Windows code hasn't already been forked without public disclosure? The NSA does not have to inform the public of such things.
I dispute the astroturfing posters who have inundated Slashdot. The NSA forked Linux and publicly disclosed it because they had the liberty to do it. That is what open source is about.
Slashdot Mirror
What Red Hat did in the past is not as important as what they are doing now. If you want to judge by history, then honestly judge them with the histories other software companies who exhibited the same behaviors. The inevitable conclusion cannot be a positive one -- especially concerning a company hoping to survive in the realm of Linux. It is hypocritical to claim Red Hat is doing something acceptable while holding other companies to higher standards. Stating they've contributed this and that to Linux; and so Red Hat's behavior is okay is the point. If they were doing nothing wrong, then why must they be apologetically defended using their goodwill credits from the past? Those credits are being spent fast. The fact that so many of you parade them as being a great community member despite their having announced at sites such as News.com their intention of abandoning us demonstrates clearly the degree of denial. In fact, Red Hat doesn't even bother to make announcements at Linux sites anymore -- too many "free loaders" like us after all. This great community member no longer has time for you unless you spend most of your day "touching base" on conference calls concerning the people who actually work for a living. On their mailing lists, they've literally been laughing at the fact people who try to build from their sources will get "pieces". "If it breaks you get to keep the pieces" to be exact about one of them. It sure is funny, isn't it? Surely that doesn't suggest what it sounds like, right? Go read for yourself, for it is guaranteed to outrage. The statement that other distributors will feel empowered to take the same actions is exactly what should chill everyone to the bone.
I loved RH too. There comes a time when we must move on, and bury our lost friends. I'll miss them, but I will not live lies if that is required to keep them alive.
If the MAC number was sent, it is all they need.
The originator of this idea should be identified, and so should any cases of "prior art". Before using this idea make sure that the originator of it disclaims all "intellectual property" rights to it; or people using the idea will pay dearly in the future. History has taugh us to avoid these traps.
Free expession now requires that one have a lawyer present.
The sort of childish behavior which is reported to have come from this project is exactly the ammunition desired by those trying to label all of us as "fanatical zealots". In short, this project is a disgrace to the greater community.
Let me quickly point out something: Red Hat Software has done a hell-of-a-lot more for free/OSS (and particularly Linux) than the developers in question have ever done.
Unless someone can prove that Windows has a secret "Disable third-party software" function, I just don't see the problem.
3 3,00.html
Of course, Microsoft will make certain that no one who hasn't signed a NDA ever sees such things. In fact, it is what makes the concept of open source so dangerous for them. With open source, nothing can remain hidden. Nevertheless, here is an example for you below. You could find others if you really cared for the truth.
This is from:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1003-200-3418
"You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there a feature they have that might get in our way?"
-- Bill Gates
Do you still feel like defending their honor?
"...The ignorance of some posters suprises even me..."
"..I am so tired of juveniles trashing Win2K. They ramble on about Linux being more secure but I don't think so. Tell me *please* how to implement IPSec with Linux..."
Yes.. Those "ignorant" people who do not appreciate Microsoft's innovations are annoying. You might find the following IPSec link very educational:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=ipsec+linux& num= 30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&a mp;as_eq=&lr=lan g_en&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch =&safe=off
There have been quite a few people here to suggest that Windows is obviously more secure than Linux because the NSA never forked the Windows as it did the Linux Kernel. Their logic is full of holes.
1 - None of these posters actually documented that the NSA really does have full access to the code. Should we just take their word for it?
2 - What if they are indeed given access, but the access is under the "Shared Source" terms in which the technologists are told basically: "you can look but you can't touch"?
3 - Has anyone contemplated the legal ramifications of altering the Windows source even if Microsoft's contract suggested that it were allowed: which is very doubtful?
4 - Any open copy of Windows is invalidated by the persistent and required security patches. Open source means nothing if upgrades are required, but these updates are closed.
5 - Does any have proof that the Windows code hasn't already been forked without public disclosure? The NSA does not have to inform the public of such things.
I dispute the astroturfing posters who have inundated Slashdot. The NSA forked Linux and publicly disclosed it because they had the liberty to do it. That is what open source is about.