Unless there simply isn't, e.g., a signed telnetd package, you don't need undiscovered vulnerabilities for this to be a potential for major problems. Many packages are not the sort of thing you would really want to have on, say, a publicly accessible machine, but might be willing to have on a system on your LAN (Samba springs to mind). Beyond vulnerabilities, there's the simple issue of exposure.
If the admin can't define who is allowed to do such basic administration tasks as installing packages, something is seriously wrong!
Highly over-simplistic to the point to point of being pretty much just plain wrong. Stupid people frequently raise stupid people, but the brain is a complex organ and one that can be improved with exercise. Especially in the young. You might as well say that weak people breed weak people--there's a tiny amount of truth there, but it's drowned out by the fact that being weak and flabby is mainly caused by bad diet and lack of exercise. Take your typical slashdotter, for example...:)
And that's just the first and most obvious flaw in your proposition.
I don't want to get too far off topic, but lets just say that Idiocracy, while an entertaining movie, is evidence that Mike Judge fails biology forever.
> Excellent. That means that Microsoft Windows is now GPL'd software.:o)
No. No it doesn't. Red Hat Enterprise Linux contains quite a bit of GPL'd code, but guess what? RHEL is not GPL'd software! Many parts of RHEL, e.g. Apache, are even distributed under licenses that are incompatible with the GPL.
Anyway, licensing your own code under the GPL is always voluntary! It does not and cannot "infect" your code. It does provide strong incentives for adoption, but there are always alternatives (e.g., MS could have withdrawn this one component until they had time to provide a replacement without any GPL'd code).
Actually the lawsuit was about the fact that Microsoft stole the library routines for mac os....
No. If that was what it had been about, HP and their "NewWave" system wouldn't have been co-defendants. It was about Apple's insane (and disgusting) attempt to overreach the bounds of copyright law by laying claim to the "look and feel" of their system whose look and feel wasn't even original to them. (It was heavily based on designs by Xerox, who actually attempted a blocking lawsuit at the time, but were barred because of the statute of limitations had run out.)
Yes, Apple lost a lot of that case because of contracts they had with MS, but that was never the basis of the suit, nor were the contractual issues the only reason they lost. They also (fortunately for the world) lost because A) they themselves "stole" a lot of the stuff they were accusing MS and HP of stealing, and B) most of it wasn't protectable under copyright law in any case (the one good thing to come out of that despicable lawsuit). Their actions in bringing the lawsuit, and their arguments in it were so disgusting and abhorrent that they became the first and still only company ever actively boycotted by the Free Software Foundation. Even Microsoft has never managed to achieve that level of evil!
Apple has improved over the years, and they seem to be a fairly decent company these days (relatively speaking), but you've really gotta be a brainwashed Apple zombie fanboi to try to whitewash that whole mess!
you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.
Speak for yourself! Some of us are paid to voice specific opinions here, and stand a good chance of getting fired if we don't toe our master's line and promote the status quo.
Oh, and by the way, Vista always worked fine for me, and Win7 is even better, and the Zune is the greatest portable device ever made!:)
Tell that to the companies that are making millions and millions. Didn't IBM invest a billion in Linux a few years back, and then claim that they'd more than recouped their investment in fairly short order?
2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.
The GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation. You don't enforce it, you ignore it and sue for copyright violation. It's up the the defendant to proffer the GPL in their own defense if they can (and if they can, then they weren't violating it, so why'd you sue them?) Yes, it's usually done in civil court, because copyright violation is not usually a criminal matter (though it can be), but so what? The only real difference is that the burden of proof becomes "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is to your advantage, and the violators aren't likely to be looking at jail time, which doesn't seem unreasonable. So, what's your point here?
3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.
A) how do you know that? and B) how is that relevant to anything? Anything at all?
4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.
This sentence doesn't even make any sense. Software doesn't have lawyers; people (and companies) do. Some people don't have much money to spend on lawyers; others, especially big companies like Red Hat and Novell and IBM do. Individuals are going to find it fairly hard to fight big companies that are trying to rip them off, but that has nothing to do with the GPL, and everything to do with the inequities of our legal system(s). But there's a lot of money behind GPL software these days. A whole lot! It ain't 1992 any more. Free/Libre/Open Source is big business these days!
To sue, one must prove damages.
And it's not hard to prove. The German and US courts have already accepted that the quid-pro-quo element of the GPL is a viable means of exchange; damages don't have to be monetary. If you live in another country than those two, you might have to prove that it's true in your jurisdiction, but the reasoning is pretty clear, and I'd be stunned if any judge anywhere ruled elsewise. Anyway, the goal is usually compliance, not restitution.
Seconded here. I've been listening to the "debates" for years and years and haven't heard anything new from either side in so long I can't remember. Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here: BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy. As long as someone can "prove" that I'm evil no matter which one I support, I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both, each in their own place. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!:)
Section 8 is not "part of the preamble! I don't know where people come up with crap like this. Here's a hint: there are numerous copies of the constitution online, and your computer has the ability to search text. And if you click the little search button more than once you can find out if the text you're searching for occurs more than once! (Here's another hint: it does.)
I like how when someone has a problem with a Windows install, it's always: "it must be your hardware", but when someone has a problem with a Linux install, it's "Linux isn't ready for the desktop!" or similar nonsense.
Note, I'm not accusing you here; you stuck to the subject in front of you, and I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's funny that yours was the first post in this article suggesting someone might be having hardware problems...and it was regarding a Windows install, not Ubuntu.
Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design
Yes, it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them. Those damn users should just sit down, shut up, and consume like good little drones!
I'd love to use cutting edge fonts [...]
I'd love to avoid sites you design at all costs! At least until I get a javascript-enabled version of lynx working.:)
Actually, I'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here. I'm presuming that you don't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features. But you know what they say: it's only 99.99% of web designers that make the rest look bad!:)
If you're going to do that, you need to eliminate files that simply contain ".conf" in them somewhere (use --regex '\.conf$'), as well as files in/usr/share/doc (merely documentation), files in/bin,/sbin,/usr/bin,/usr/sbin and/usr/local/bin (binaries wont be configuration files), and files in a source directory (I have numerous scattered around). If I eliminate those and/etc (which I discussed previously), I get 108, most of which are in/usr/share/alsa.
imagine the sheer volume of.CONF files a Linux user would have to waft through just to get this to check a distro for bugs.
501:~ $ locate.CONF 502:~ $
Looks like the volume is...zero? I think maybe I don't understand what you mean. Is ".CONF" some sort of Windows-speak for configuration files? If so, then the fact that they're all in/etc (or possibly/usr/etc or/usr/local/etc) and/home should make them very easy to skip.
Actually, I think Slackware may still support installation from a stack of floppies. The result is...well, let's just say that it's arguably better than Win3.1 and leave it at that. I don't want to start any religious wars here.:)
Does anyone actually "line up" to see a movie when it's first released anymore?
No, they buy tickets online or from a vending machine and get in much faster so there's no reason for the lines anymore. At least, that's judging by the most recent releases I've seen, where there wasn't a line, but there was a packed house, just like there used to be when I had to wait in line.
I think this might backfire on them.
Now that's definitely true! There's so many ways....:)
Pro gay marriage, pro Islam. You know, the usual liberal agenda.
Wow, I don't know if you're trolling or simply being ironic, but you sure hit the irony on the head, since the very first name on the hall of shame is NPR for shutting down an anti gay marriage ad!
When they start defending the right to buy firearms online, I might throw some money their way.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. I assume that you're likewise not going to donate to the NRA till they start defending your right to post parodies online? (Or trollish/ironic posts on slashdot?)
If one provider offers me "cloud computing" and the other offers "software as a service", what does that tell me
Not bloody much. That's like saying (yay, car analogy ahead!) one provider offers "rental car service" and another offers "transportation", what does that tell you? One term is more vague and broad than the other, and they're definitely not synonyms, but the both offerings could be described as "transportation".
Not that I don't think "cloud computing" is an overused, overhyped, ambiguous and frequently misleading term itself. I do. But it's still only a subset of "software as a service".
My favorite example of a prediction retroactively corrected (albeit more tongue-in-cheek than most) is the Subgenii, who, when the world didn't end in 1998, decided that they'd gotten the date upside down! The correct date, they now proclaim, is 8661.:)
(Actually, they apparently now have end-of-world celebrations every year, just in case, but I remember when the 8661 date was on the front page of the Subgenius website, and that date is still commemorated in the ddate man page as above, and is mentioned in lots of related material.)
Ironically, the page you linked to includes the original Subgenius date with no commentary on either the nature of Slack, er, Bob, er the CoSG, nor any mention of the updated 8661 date.
It was well documented in "Undocumented Windows. There's also the Court's Finding of Facts in US v Microsoft, and, if that weren't clear enough, The letter (warning: PDF) from now-former MS Group Manager Dennis Adler submitted as evidence in Comes v Microsoft makes it clear that this behavior did not stop as it was supposed to with the consent decree (although it may have become more innocuous and innocent overall). Quoting from that last: "Why not just document the API's, preface the document with some HONEST history (yes, we did use undoc'd APIs, yes we now have a policy in place of not doing that -- a policy that was not in place previously [...]"
Maybe. Maybe they've stopped now. The fact is that they did do it, they continued to do it even after the consent decree forbade it, and there is no evidence that they've stopped (although there is evidence that it's no longer standard policy).
In my experience, not installing Norton Antivirus can be just as bad! In fact, simply installing a system that can actually run Norton Antivirus seems to be a pretty high-risk activity, whether or not you actually do install it. This risk can be somewhat mitigated by using a VM or an emulator or an "...Is Not an Emulator" hosted on a system that can't use NAV--but only somewhat.:)
Of course (to bring this slightly back towards on-topic), if you can get the authorities to believe you installed their (real) censorware (along with NAV, at your option), when it's really just running on a VM or emulator or WINE, that might very slightly increase your chance of safely bypassing their censorship.
Really? Really? When did they start doing that!? Given the amount of time they spent establishing the fact that their published APIs were a trap and a route to failure for anyone who might try to compete with them (see Lotus, WordPerfect, et. al), I'm really going to want a citation on that.
Granted, following their unpublished APIs is also a dangerous route, but at least it has (historically at least) given one a fighting chance. Which is pretty much why a whole industry sprang up to document the undocumented.
Unless he's referring to an adjective or noun, I highly doubt that he means "gender". Words have gender, people have sex.
(Ok, that's a bit of prescriptionist view, albeit a well-supported one, but even from a descriptionist view, "Sex" can refer to physical plumbing or societal role, so your attempted distinction there isn't valid no matter what.)
The biggest problem with popcon whether it's on by default or not is its self-selecting nature. When you have to turn it on manually, it self-selects for fanbois (who else would bother?), and if it's on by default, it self-selects for dummies, slobs and fanbois.:)
By its very nature, it anti-selects for those who are setting up servers, since the last thing you want on a busy server is some random process scanning your system and then phoning home on a random basis. It also anti-selects for those setting up embedded or similar systems for what should be equally obvious reasons. Basically, its going to skew heavily towards desktop users. The only way its results could really be meaningful would be if it was mandatory and could not be disable (and that would just mean that lots of people would use other systems completely, which would skew the results again, in a manner of speaking).
I've been using Debian for over a decade, and I've never installed popcon and doubt I ever will. I won't even use it on my desktop systems because I'm concerned that its already starting to cause the project to focus more on the desktop and less on the server room than they should.
Well, there is Leviticus, which says that if a man shall lie with another man, it is an abomination.
Actually it (Lev18:22) says thou shall not. So, for women, straight sex is out--it doesn't say the rule only applies to men! And for men, sleeping with a woman is tempting them into sin (lying with a man), which is itself a sin. Thus, according to the Bible, only lesbian sex is allowed!:)
(The KJB actually says "mankind", which could be tricky if you mean the whole thing--the largest orgy I've ever been in was a mere ten people, nowhere near all of mankind--or could simply be interpreted as ruling out the really butch lesbians as well.):)
Slashdot Mirror
Unless there simply isn't, e.g., a signed telnetd package, you don't need undiscovered vulnerabilities for this to be a potential for major problems. Many packages are not the sort of thing you would really want to have on, say, a publicly accessible machine, but might be willing to have on a system on your LAN (Samba springs to mind). Beyond vulnerabilities, there's the simple issue of exposure.
If the admin can't define who is allowed to do such basic administration tasks as installing packages, something is seriously wrong!
stupid people breed stupid people.
Highly over-simplistic to the point to point of being pretty much just plain wrong. Stupid people frequently raise stupid people, but the brain is a complex organ and one that can be improved with exercise. Especially in the young. You might as well say that weak people breed weak people--there's a tiny amount of truth there, but it's drowned out by the fact that being weak and flabby is mainly caused by bad diet and lack of exercise. Take your typical slashdotter, for example... :)
And that's just the first and most obvious flaw in your proposition.
I don't want to get too far off topic, but lets just say that Idiocracy, while an entertaining movie, is evidence that Mike Judge fails biology forever.
> > Microsoft 7 legally contains GPL code.
> Excellent. That means that Microsoft Windows is now GPL'd software. :o)
No. No it doesn't. Red Hat Enterprise Linux contains quite a bit of GPL'd code, but guess what? RHEL is not GPL'd software! Many parts of RHEL, e.g. Apache, are even distributed under licenses that are incompatible with the GPL.
Anyway, licensing your own code under the GPL is always voluntary! It does not and cannot "infect" your code. It does provide strong incentives for adoption, but there are always alternatives (e.g., MS could have withdrawn this one component until they had time to provide a replacement without any GPL'd code).
Actually the lawsuit was about the fact that Microsoft stole the library routines for mac os....
No. If that was what it had been about, HP and their "NewWave" system wouldn't have been co-defendants. It was about Apple's insane (and disgusting) attempt to overreach the bounds of copyright law by laying claim to the "look and feel" of their system whose look and feel wasn't even original to them. (It was heavily based on designs by Xerox, who actually attempted a blocking lawsuit at the time, but were barred because of the statute of limitations had run out.)
Yes, Apple lost a lot of that case because of contracts they had with MS, but that was never the basis of the suit, nor were the contractual issues the only reason they lost. They also (fortunately for the world) lost because A) they themselves "stole" a lot of the stuff they were accusing MS and HP of stealing, and B) most of it wasn't protectable under copyright law in any case (the one good thing to come out of that despicable lawsuit). Their actions in bringing the lawsuit, and their arguments in it were so disgusting and abhorrent that they became the first and still only company ever actively boycotted by the Free Software Foundation. Even Microsoft has never managed to achieve that level of evil!
Apple has improved over the years, and they seem to be a fairly decent company these days (relatively speaking), but you've really gotta be a brainwashed Apple zombie fanboi to try to whitewash that whole mess!
you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.
Speak for yourself! Some of us are paid to voice specific opinions here, and stand a good chance of getting fired if we don't toe our master's line and promote the status quo.
Oh, and by the way, Vista always worked fine for me, and Win7 is even better, and the Zune is the greatest portable device ever made! :)
1) GPL software is not very profitable.
Tell that to the companies that are making millions and millions. Didn't IBM invest a billion in Linux a few years back, and then claim that they'd more than recouped their investment in fairly short order?
2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.
The GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation. You don't enforce it, you ignore it and sue for copyright violation. It's up the the defendant to proffer the GPL in their own defense if they can (and if they can, then they weren't violating it, so why'd you sue them?) Yes, it's usually done in civil court, because copyright violation is not usually a criminal matter (though it can be), but so what? The only real difference is that the burden of proof becomes "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is to your advantage, and the violators aren't likely to be looking at jail time, which doesn't seem unreasonable. So, what's your point here?
3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.
A) how do you know that? and B) how is that relevant to anything? Anything at all?
4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.
This sentence doesn't even make any sense. Software doesn't have lawyers; people (and companies) do. Some people don't have much money to spend on lawyers; others, especially big companies like Red Hat and Novell and IBM do. Individuals are going to find it fairly hard to fight big companies that are trying to rip them off, but that has nothing to do with the GPL, and everything to do with the inequities of our legal system(s). But there's a lot of money behind GPL software these days. A whole lot! It ain't 1992 any more. Free/Libre/Open Source is big business these days!
To sue, one must prove damages.
And it's not hard to prove. The German and US courts have already accepted that the quid-pro-quo element of the GPL is a viable means of exchange; damages don't have to be monetary. If you live in another country than those two, you might have to prove that it's true in your jurisdiction, but the reasoning is pretty clear, and I'd be stunned if any judge anywhere ruled elsewise. Anyway, the goal is usually compliance, not restitution.
Seconded here. I've been listening to the "debates" for years and years and haven't heard anything new from either side in so long I can't remember. Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here: BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy. As long as someone can "prove" that I'm evil no matter which one I support, I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both, each in their own place. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn! :)
Section 8 is not "part of the preamble! I don't know where people come up with crap like this. Here's a hint: there are numerous copies of the constitution online, and your computer has the ability to search text. And if you click the little search button more than once you can find out if the text you're searching for occurs more than once! (Here's another hint: it does.)
Watched some dumb bitch run a red light while flapping her stupid mouth on a cell phone yesterday.
My favorite was watching a guy on his cell phone rear-end a guy on his cell phone right in front of my house. I applauded! :)
I like how when someone has a problem with a Windows install, it's always: "it must be your hardware", but when someone has a problem with a Linux install, it's "Linux isn't ready for the desktop!" or similar nonsense.
Note, I'm not accusing you here; you stuck to the subject in front of you, and I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's funny that yours was the first post in this article suggesting someone might be having hardware problems...and it was regarding a Windows install, not Ubuntu.
Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design
Yes, it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them. Those damn users should just sit down, shut up, and consume like good little drones!
I'd love to use cutting edge fonts [...]
I'd love to avoid sites you design at all costs! At least until I get a javascript-enabled version of lynx working. :)
Actually, I'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here. I'm presuming that you don't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features. But you know what they say: it's only 99.99% of web designers that make the rest look bad! :)
Argh, replying simply to clear up a mis-click when I tried to moderate. Stupid no-verification mod buttons suck! :)
If you're going to do that, you need to eliminate files that simply contain ".conf" in them somewhere (use --regex '\.conf$'), as well as files in /usr/share/doc (merely documentation), files in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and /usr/local/bin (binaries wont be configuration files), and files in a source directory (I have numerous scattered around). If I eliminate those and /etc (which I discussed previously), I get 108, most of which are in /usr/share/alsa.
imagine the sheer volume of .CONF files a Linux user would have to waft through just to get this to check a distro for bugs.
Looks like the volume is...zero? I think maybe I don't understand what you mean. Is ".CONF" some sort of Windows-speak for configuration files? If so, then the fact that they're all in /etc (or possibly /usr/etc or /usr/local/etc) and /home should make them very easy to skip.
Actually, I think Slackware may still support installation from a stack of floppies. The result is...well, let's just say that it's arguably better than Win3.1 and leave it at that. I don't want to start any religious wars here. :)
Does anyone actually "line up" to see a movie when it's first released anymore?
No, they buy tickets online or from a vending machine and get in much faster so there's no reason for the lines anymore. At least, that's judging by the most recent releases I've seen, where there wasn't a line, but there was a packed house, just like there used to be when I had to wait in line.
I think this might backfire on them.
Now that's definitely true! There's so many ways.... :)
Pro gay marriage, pro Islam. You know, the usual liberal agenda.
Wow, I don't know if you're trolling or simply being ironic, but you sure hit the irony on the head, since the very first name on the hall of shame is NPR for shutting down an anti gay marriage ad!
When they start defending the right to buy firearms online, I might throw some money their way.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. I assume that you're likewise not going to donate to the NRA till they start defending your right to post parodies online? (Or trollish/ironic posts on slashdot?)
If one provider offers me "cloud computing" and the other offers "software as a service", what does that tell me
Not bloody much. That's like saying (yay, car analogy ahead!) one provider offers "rental car service" and another offers "transportation", what does that tell you? One term is more vague and broad than the other, and they're definitely not synonyms, but the both offerings could be described as "transportation".
Not that I don't think "cloud computing" is an overused, overhyped, ambiguous and frequently misleading term itself. I do. But it's still only a subset of "software as a service".
My favorite example of a prediction retroactively corrected (albeit more tongue-in-cheek than most) is the Subgenii, who, when the world didn't end in 1998, decided that they'd gotten the date upside down! The correct date, they now proclaim, is 8661. :)
(Actually, they apparently now have end-of-world celebrations every year, just in case, but I remember when the 8661 date was on the front page of the Subgenius website, and that date is still commemorated in the ddate man page as above, and is mentioned in lots of related material.)
Ironically, the page you linked to includes the original Subgenius date with no commentary on either the nature of Slack, er, Bob, er the CoSG, nor any mention of the updated 8661 date.
It was well documented in "Undocumented Windows. There's also the Court's Finding of Facts in US v Microsoft, and, if that weren't clear enough, The letter (warning: PDF) from now-former MS Group Manager Dennis Adler submitted as evidence in Comes v Microsoft makes it clear that this behavior did not stop as it was supposed to with the consent decree (although it may have become more innocuous and innocent overall). Quoting from that last: "Why not just document the API's, preface the document with some HONEST history (yes, we did use undoc'd APIs, yes we now have a policy in place of not doing that -- a policy that was not in place previously [...]"
Maybe. Maybe they've stopped now. The fact is that they did do it, they continued to do it even after the consent decree forbade it, and there is no evidence that they've stopped (although there is evidence that it's no longer standard policy).
In my experience, not installing Norton Antivirus can be just as bad! In fact, simply installing a system that can actually run Norton Antivirus seems to be a pretty high-risk activity, whether or not you actually do install it. This risk can be somewhat mitigated by using a VM or an emulator or an "...Is Not an Emulator" hosted on a system that can't use NAV--but only somewhat. :)
Of course (to bring this slightly back towards on-topic), if you can get the authorities to believe you installed their (real) censorware (along with NAV, at your option), when it's really just running on a VM or emulator or WINE, that might very slightly increase your chance of safely bypassing their censorship.
Microsoft follows their publised API's
Really? Really? When did they start doing that!? Given the amount of time they spent establishing the fact that their published APIs were a trap and a route to failure for anyone who might try to compete with them (see Lotus, WordPerfect, et. al), I'm really going to want a citation on that.
Granted, following their unpublished APIs is also a dangerous route, but at least it has (historically at least) given one a fighting chance. Which is pretty much why a whole industry sprang up to document the undocumented.
oh wait, do you mean gender?
Unless he's referring to an adjective or noun, I highly doubt that he means "gender". Words have gender, people have sex.
(Ok, that's a bit of prescriptionist view, albeit a well-supported one, but even from a descriptionist view, "Sex" can refer to physical plumbing or societal role, so your attempted distinction there isn't valid no matter what.)
The biggest problem with popcon whether it's on by default or not is its self-selecting nature. When you have to turn it on manually, it self-selects for fanbois (who else would bother?), and if it's on by default, it self-selects for dummies, slobs and fanbois. :)
By its very nature, it anti-selects for those who are setting up servers, since the last thing you want on a busy server is some random process scanning your system and then phoning home on a random basis. It also anti-selects for those setting up embedded or similar systems for what should be equally obvious reasons. Basically, its going to skew heavily towards desktop users. The only way its results could really be meaningful would be if it was mandatory and could not be disable (and that would just mean that lots of people would use other systems completely, which would skew the results again, in a manner of speaking).
I've been using Debian for over a decade, and I've never installed popcon and doubt I ever will. I won't even use it on my desktop systems because I'm concerned that its already starting to cause the project to focus more on the desktop and less on the server room than they should.
Well, there is Leviticus, which says that if a man shall lie with another man, it is an abomination.
Actually it (Lev18:22) says thou shall not. So, for women, straight sex is out--it doesn't say the rule only applies to men! And for men, sleeping with a woman is tempting them into sin (lying with a man), which is itself a sin. Thus, according to the Bible, only lesbian sex is allowed! :)
(The KJB actually says "mankind", which could be tricky if you mean the whole thing--the largest orgy I've ever been in was a mere ten people, nowhere near all of mankind--or could simply be interpreted as ruling out the really butch lesbians as well.) :)