"Linux is not even an operating system. It is the kernel of the operating systems that engineers at Red Hat and others, including the Debian team, build."
I have nothing against Red Hat, but this statement unfair to people other than those that work for Red Hat or contribute to Debian. He could have said something like:
"Linux is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system. Along with companies like Red Hat, people all around the world contribute to open source software. Such organizations as the Debian project and the Free Software foundation help maintain and conduct the development of open source software."
Instead of this, Bob Young decided that placing that little "other" inside the sentence, where most people wouldn't even notice it, would suffice to credit everyone other than Red Hat.
What exactly does Pinkerton do with the information that they obtain from students who turn other students in?
According to the main page of their web site, they "... allow employers to make informed employee selections... open up information rich avenues of communication between employees and management."
What exactly happens to the information that students reveal to Pinkerton? Is it sold, traded, given away, or disseminated into other organizations in any way? If so, who is able to buy or recieve this information? What will people use this information for?
Wait... can you clarify your opinion for me? I don't underdstand what you're trying to say. Initially, you said, Should the government be able to continue increasing the amount of money it steals from people? NO! And at the end you expressed that you thought the government should get more involved in the capitalist economy of the US. This is supposed to be a capitalist country, it is time we got a capitalist government. According to you, the US shouldn't get involved in the peoples affairs in terms of taxing, but should become more capitalistic. How is the government supposed to obtain money from the people except by means of taxation?
This guy doesn't know what he's saying... Linux is not about satisfying our customers. In a way, the members of the open source community are their own customers. If I can download a complete and robust operating system and burn it onto a cd for free, I don't consider myself a customer of the open source community. I consider myself a user of open source software. We users of open source operating systems aren't about satisfying our customers... We're about satisfying ourselves with a competent operating system. If anyone out there wants to use our operating system but doesn't want to contribute to the open source community, then by all means, they should be able to. But they aren't our customers. We do this for ourselves.
Seriously, what motivation does the mpaa have to try to stop people from linking to files that can decrypt css or even linking to sites that have those files. I mean, any company now can come along and make a dvd player(either software or set top) and they don't have to pay the mpaa anything because they don't have patents on css. And if they are in the least bit intelligent, they will not be able to keep these sources away from us, because we are the all powerful open source communitiy. Nothing can get in our way! We will continue developing programs that can "circumvent copyright protection" and will continue "disseminating" these programs over the internet. Even if they file an injunction against every web site that supports decss and other css decryption information, we cannot be silenced. Our supreme power comes from our decentralized network of information, and they simply cannot destroy any information that we discover. They have no hope. They are already beginning to develop css-2, another encryption scheme, which will be used on audio dvds and probably on any future dvds. that is their best bet, since they cannot defeat the open source community. Seriously, has anyone ever waged a war against us and won? Nope. Anyway, have a nice day.
Look, Timewarner already has a huge monopoly even without AOL. I live in upstate New York, and I have no other options for cable TV except for Timewarner. Timewarner controls all of the information that get into my community via cable TV. As for internet access, everyone in my town that owns a computer is subscribed to either AOL or RoadRunner(Timewarner's cable modem connection.) If you don't call that a monopoly, I don't know what is.
Apple is now threatening to make the same move that Microsoft said they were going to eventually make. They are making parts of the Operating System open source. No doubt they will claim that the whole OS is fully open source, but there is no way that they could do this and keep their business alive. Open source OS users will be very scared of this claim, and rightfully so. There are many people in the world that don't know as much about computers as us, and they will be satisfied with the claim that the OS is open source, even if only part of it is. Right now, Apple cannot release everything in their OS as open source, because they have applications and other types of software from other companies included with their OS, and these companies will not settle for making their software open source. When Microsoft sees that the move for partial open source made by Apple was successful, they will no doubt move in that direction. If this works, it will strongly damage the foothold that open source operating systems and software has made, because the media will interpret "open source" and "partial open source" to be basically the same thing, and cause the advantages of true open source operating systems and software to disappear in the eyes of the consumers
Slashdot Mirror
"Linux is not even an operating system. It is the kernel of the operating systems that engineers at Red Hat and others, including the Debian team, build."
I have nothing against Red Hat, but this statement unfair to people other than those that work for Red Hat or contribute to Debian. He could have said something like:
"Linux is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system. Along with companies like Red Hat, people all around the world contribute to open source software. Such organizations as the Debian project and the Free Software foundation help maintain and conduct the development of open source software."
Instead of this, Bob Young decided that placing that little "other" inside the sentence, where most people wouldn't even notice it, would suffice to credit everyone other than Red Hat.
What exactly does Pinkerton do with the information that they obtain from students who turn other students in?
According to the main page of their web site, they "... allow employers to make informed employee selections... open up information rich avenues of communication between employees and management."
What exactly happens to the information that students reveal to Pinkerton? Is it sold, traded, given away, or disseminated into other organizations in any way? If so, who is able to buy or recieve this information? What will people use this information for?
Wait... can you clarify your opinion for me? I don't underdstand what you're trying to say. Initially, you said, Should the government be able to continue increasing the amount of money it steals from people? NO! And at the end you expressed that you thought the government should get more involved in the capitalist economy of the US. This is supposed to be a capitalist country, it is time we got a capitalist government. According to you, the US shouldn't get involved in the peoples affairs in terms of taxing, but should become more capitalistic. How is the government supposed to obtain money from the people except by means of taxation?
This guy doesn't know what he's saying... Linux is not about satisfying our customers. In a way, the members of the open source community are their own customers. If I can download a complete and robust operating system and burn it onto a cd for free, I don't consider myself a customer of the open source community. I consider myself a user of open source software. We users of open source operating systems aren't about satisfying our customers... We're about satisfying ourselves with a competent operating system. If anyone out there wants to use our operating system but doesn't want to contribute to the open source community, then by all means, they should be able to. But they aren't our customers. We do this for ourselves.
Seriously, what motivation does the mpaa have to try to stop people from linking to files that can decrypt css or even linking to sites that have those files. I mean, any company now can come along and make a dvd player(either software or set top) and they don't have to pay the mpaa anything because they don't have patents on css. And if they are in the least bit intelligent, they will not be able to keep these sources away from us, because we are the all powerful open source communitiy. Nothing can get in our way! We will continue developing programs that can "circumvent copyright protection" and will continue "disseminating" these programs over the internet. Even if they file an injunction against every web site that supports decss and other css decryption information, we cannot be silenced. Our supreme power comes from our decentralized network of information, and they simply cannot destroy any information that we discover. They have no hope. They are already beginning to develop css-2, another encryption scheme, which will be used on audio dvds and probably on any future dvds. that is their best bet, since they cannot defeat the open source community. Seriously, has anyone ever waged a war against us and won? Nope. Anyway, have a nice day.
Look, Timewarner already has a huge monopoly even without AOL. I live in upstate New York, and I have no other options for cable TV except for Timewarner. Timewarner controls all of the information that get into my community via cable TV. As for internet access, everyone in my town that owns a computer is subscribed to either AOL or RoadRunner(Timewarner's cable modem connection.) If you don't call that a monopoly, I don't know what is.
Apple is now threatening to make the same move that Microsoft said they were going to eventually make. They are making parts of the Operating System open source. No doubt they will claim that the whole OS is fully open source, but there is no way that they could do this and keep their business alive. Open source OS users will be very scared of this claim, and rightfully so. There are many people in the world that don't know as much about computers as us, and they will be satisfied with the claim that the OS is open source, even if only part of it is. Right now, Apple cannot release everything in their OS as open source, because they have applications and other types of software from other companies included with their OS, and these companies will not settle for making their software open source. When Microsoft sees that the move for partial open source made by Apple was successful, they will no doubt move in that direction. If this works, it will strongly damage the foothold that open source operating systems and software has made, because the media will interpret "open source" and "partial open source" to be basically the same thing, and cause the advantages of true open source operating systems and software to disappear in the eyes of the consumers