You can get almost all of those perks by working at home, if you've got the right spouse (24/7 massage availiability) and make enogh money from there;). Plus, there's noone to complain about the music and, most importantly, no boss:)
Close, but not quite......
on
Beaming Money
·
· Score: 1
If you look at the visitors-from-the-past episodes and even that movie, it's not that the got rid of money, but that they eliminated poverty. Though it would be hard to maintain a productive society, eliminate poverty, and continue a minimal form of capitalism, but hey, they _did_ say the same thing about a democracy in a capitalistic society.
"Red Hat plans to create a full-fledged Linux news service as part of its effort to increase market appeal and potential profitability." .... And that is exactly why it won't work. Change the motives. Every hire Red Hat is getting so the product can get closer to windows, the farther Red Hat seperates themselves from the Linux culture.
Just in case someone moderated it.... Disturbing by sophisto (slutty_pants@yourmomshouse.og) on Tuesday June 29, @01:23PM EDT (#) (User Info) http://www.ungabunga.com
If yahoo get away with stealing users IP, they are in essence stealing the users ID. I hope that other ISP's don't follow this & create a terrifying trend.
IP in this instance means INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY . Why don't you try reading a little bit more than the title of the article BEFORE POSTING. People like you are the reason I look both ways before crossing a greened intersection.
Catch a ride on the clue train, man. Please don't do this again. -rah
I think its time to make a new internet, one where crap like this doesn't happen. By keeping things seperate (eg: one nation wide network for video+voice, one for commerce, one for industry communications, one for research, and one for the individuals) everyone could end up happy.
One for commerce? Almost begs the question "What if we threw a party and nobody came?".... I personally would never want anything to do with junkmailnet:)
Yahoo defends the terms in the contract, saying it's trying to prevent itself from being sued over copyright infringements and wants the ability to promote its service.
Hrmmmm..... Really, what ever happened to saying "We host your content, we make money off of the ads." Claiming the content is theirs to do with as they please is wrong. Their agreement is more likely to CREATE trouble for yahoo, because with a little bit of wordplay you could say Yahoo owns the content to kiddie-porn on such site and warez on another.... More than anything, I believe what we all should learn from this is that 99% of the lawyers out there are clueless, stupid, selfish people who have no disregard for anyone outside of their client.... Until their client learns that they are screwing over the people that they service.
You can make personal versions and change and never release the source, because you never release the version you make. But if you distribute, all changes must be pub.
GPL'd software can NEVER NEVER NEVER be released as anything but GPL'd software. You can not make a proprietary version of the Linux kernel. Period.
By proprietary I (an 99.9% of everyone else out there) *do not* simply mean a changed or altered source, but closed-source alterations. In fact, the second right the GPL gives you is "this liscense, which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute,and/or modify the software."
Under terms #2 "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any protion of it, thus forming a work based on the program,... provided...: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that is whole or part contains or is derived from the program or any part therof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
That mean GPL'd programs remain GPL'd no matter what (unless you keep the code to yourself, no distributing). No proprietary distributions, no secrets, nothing of that sort. Your statement "The GPL does not require someone using GPLed code to make their changes available for download."is completely wrong if that person is going to distribute his product (which these people intend to do).
Of course, I've believed from the begining that these people are full of bull, "BeOS and Linux hybrid".... Heck, through some more buzzwords in there while you're at it!:)
Read The liscence. Read the source. Then code.
Yes, you can. Your peer respect dies though......
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Taking BSD liscence stuff and repackaging and GPL'ing it isn't a good move for those looking for respect in either community. Those are the breaks:)
Too bad they don't come close to the lGPL.....
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 2
You see, I believe one of the best liscences out there is the "lesser" GPL, which was completely ommited in this comparison. The lGPL gives ALL software writers freedom to integrate libraries and programs into proprietary code, but those lGPL'd libraries and programs must still be freely availiable from the software writers in source code form. In other words, both proprietary-nonGPL'd software and free software benefit. Free software like Gtk+ can gain much greater support, and as more proprietary software houses jump onto the linux bandwagon, they will have things to add to and improve in Gtk+ itself. Straight GPL has always beeen to restrictive in this area. GPL'd (not lGPL) libraries and programs can not be used IN ANY WAY in proprietary software. The GPL is for the advancement of "free" software, but only for "free" software authors. If it can't be used to help everyone, including evil proprietary coders;), it seems to me that the GPL actually is more geared to "free beer" rather than "freedom". Isn't it time we re-name the "lesser General Public License":)?
The most popular and growing forms of advertisement and product placement is most evident in material and media that we cannot avoid. Take a look at the ads that come with you phone and cable bills. Look along the side of the interstate in many areas. You can't really close your eyes whil you drive or write a check for the bill. You can't even go bowling without running into tons of beer ads! I won't even go into junk mail (e- and realtime).... I've even seen roadmaps, that you pay money for, sport ads on top of the "less important" sections of a city. Whereas advertisements used to make things cheaper for the consumer, it's now become an "extra" source of revenue in many types of necessary-to-view media. Yes, even Austin Powers (the spy who shagged me) probably would have left a bit better tast in everyone's mouth without blatant product placement:)..... So, unavoidable ads are the hottest property on the block, and why would corporations pass up selling that type of ad space if they can provide it? When it gets down to it, the last thing I want to see in the mornings when I turn on my computer is a fscking ad for depends undergarments. It is my personal property, and the only property I own that carries tangible, baltant ads are magazines. (I do not own t-shirts that advertise, nor do I watch TV). Just because Phoenix has a widely used BIOS doesn't mean they should exploit thier customers like that! They make enough money from motherboard manufacturers now. If they want to make the bios'es for free in exchange for ads, the motherboard manufacturers probably wont pass on the savings to us, the consumers, the people who matter most.
Why are 486's cheap? Here's your mini economics course.
High Demand + Low Supply = High Selling Price High Demand + High Supply = K-rad selling price Low Demand + Low Supply = K-rad Selling Price and of course.... Low Demand + High Supply = Really Really Low Selling Price ( - The 486 chips go here, though supply isn't all that high, unless it's relative to demand.)
They aren't cheap just because they are old, but because no product currently demand them. (This explains why the antique computer buisness exists:)
If there is a high demand for iToasters, then demand for parts for the iToasters also go up. If the supply for those parts begins to dry up (example: if they are made from old 486's, which are no longer in production, period), parts price go up, then that company is in trouble:)
Basing a new product on obsolete technology is bad bull for any company.
I'd rather refute you than moderate for blatant ignorance. 1) NOT ALL SHOPS ARE THE SAME. - In fact, most of them suck. In a big way. Mine's not too bad, though I could definitely use a pay raise. (BTW, I live near Austin and am ready for a new job. E-mail me:) However, trusting a GOOD computer shop is a much, much better idea than trusting the "Idea Box":) 2) At Fry's, Circuit City, and etc., the "tech" don't usually know JACK $HIT:) - Truth. They are usually little more than glorified burger flippers. Every once an a while, you find someone who knows something, but it's very uncommon. They make up answers to questions they've never heard before. At a computer shop, the owners and managers don't have any use for people who don't know how to work a computer. Don't expect them to last long. 3) You are stupid. - I hate being blunt, but if you get taken by an unreasonable computer store, it's nobody's fault but yourself. You also must be living in a hole to think they all overcharge. Any of them doing good, solid buisness offer better prices on new equipment much more regularly than bigger chains. If a computer store has a good reputation, go there. Why take chances? Even if you have no life, you can call up the BBB or just start asking around and checking prices. Unreasonable computer shops do not last very long though. They have to be very resoponsive to thier local reputation, because often that is all they have. BTW, if you are going to complain about outrageous prices, start with insurance, auto repair, and apartment rent:)
I can understand trying to sell affordable computers, as I manage a computer store, but this stuff is really starting to annoy me. When these type of machines come out, they market it as the greatest invention since sliced bread, and maybe 80% of the consumers buy into this wonderful invention that only cost $200. In reality, the devices are about as powerful as a LeMans powered by a hamster wheel. The consumer gets unhappy and taken again, can't return it because of the "no refunds" policy, and gets paranoid about the computer buisness and these fly-by-night operations in general. Where it really annoys me is when people buy into the marketing, come to my shop, and ask for a Quad-PIII-500 with Warp Drive and expect to only pay $200 for it. No. It don't work that way. Personal computers, like it or not, are extremly individualistic machines. There are many options and many price ranges. You can't buy a '99 Camaro for $1000 from the dealerships, and the same type of reasoning applies to PCs. Get over it, consumers! Next time you by a computer, please get someone PC literate to go shopping with you. Quit looking for the cheapest way out. If you do, these marketers will keep on riding you, just like a bad car salesman or insurance salesman....
The republicans do cry about increasing the powers of law enforcement officials. They also cry the loudest about keeping thier butts out of private lives and matteres of the american people and minimal government control! It's not that dems are bad, but my opinion is that they have hurt more than helped in the past few years when it comes to personal freedoms.
By the way, moderating me down then posting as an AC, all because of that minor poilitcal "Whoop!" is lame, I hope your mamma's proud:)
I read some nice arguments over at http://www.stand.org.uk/ that I agree with.
First of all, can you name one instance where any type of police investigation was hampered because of encrypted email messages? It's a fear that the democrat half of the government has, that it's not going to be in complete control of everything about your life. It's a control issue, not a law inforcement issue!
Secondly, if you are going to be doing something really criminal or secret, you aren't going to stay within legal regulations as far as encryption goes, are you:) ?
There's a difference between protecting the public and controlling the public. If they really wanted to protect us, encrypting our private messages should be approved.
Note, it's not the "government" as a whole I'm concerned about. Just the half that wants to control our live. Bush and the republicans in 2000, baby:) !
(These arguments are only intended to be used in the US) I believe most of the problems that are comming around with the blantant abridging of rights is the realization that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation. Freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but it should be my right NOT to disclose my identity. It should be my right to say whatever I want to about my employer without revealing info about who I am. DEFAMATION SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Period. Let the people who listen to me make up thier own judgement about whatever I say, and how credible it is. This type of problem makes me sick. Where the problem is in this case is that somehow the judge has been convinced that basic human and (here in the states) American rights can be overlooked if they are being used for something that other people may not approve of. No. We can not do that. First, it starts small, but the next thing you know it will be illegal for newspapers to publish editorials because they defame American politicians. In fact, defamation is not a tool to destroy, but to improve! Without criticism and failure, we would not strive to better ourselves. Stockholders might not like it, but those are the breaks....... Sorry to sidetrack, but the main issue is this: Freedom is freedom. Denial of these rights because of the intent to which they will be used means that this country is not truly free. Saying that Free Speech rights should be denied because they do not cover freedom to do it anonymously or use through defamation makes about as much fscking sense as "All men are created equal. But those indians, they aren't men, they are savage creatures, and deserve no rights." Next it's going to be "Yes, you have the right to bear arms. But, the only arms that part of the bill of rights cover are these rolling pins. Maybe you can knead the attackers to death." There are times when I am proud to be an American. But in this case, I just feel shame.
Seriously, if they were real people, their IQ wouldn't be much higher than that of the average middle-aged McDonald's employee. Sure, they deal with deep ET issues and all that, but the content displayed by the on X-files have been dumbed down to the level of your average talk show:)
Welp, the fileselector applet he wants is so people can load backgrounds a lot easier more than anything, it's a long way from becoming an actual desktop shell. However, raster is interested in that. It's hard to say what he wants first. E2.0 was supposed to not only be the window manager, but a window manager and window system. He's changed that plan a little.... but I won't spoil it for ya'll.:)
I've never kept working at a place that thinks it can treat me like trash. I deserve more respect than that, and so did Raster. Loyalty is earned. If that loyalty is betrayed, it deserves to be taken away. If you get paid to write software, you want a productive environment to work in, to do good work, to deliver your product, and the management should support those who are working for them. The better you treat your workers, espicially with this type of product development, the better work they do. Plain logic. Red Hat's management gave raster trouble, made the environment bad (besides, NC SUCKS!:), and he did not want to work there anymore. Plain and simple. Why should he be RH's slave when others will pay him to work in a supportive environment? Human beings are incredible assets. Human resources fit under operating expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get almost all of those perks by working at home, if you've got the right spouse (24/7 massage availiability) and make enogh money from there ;). Plus, there's noone to complain about the music and, most importantly, no boss :)
If you look at the visitors-from-the-past episodes and even that movie, it's not that the got rid of money, but that they eliminated poverty. Though it would be hard to maintain a productive society, eliminate poverty, and continue a minimal form of capitalism, but hey, they _did_ say the same thing about a democracy in a capitalistic society.
The last revision was ugly. Looked like it was put together by a 5 year old, shoving everything in where it didn't belong. Nice one this time.
"Red Hat plans to create a full-fledged Linux news service as part of its effort to increase market appeal and potential profitability."
.... And that is exactly why it won't work. Change the motives. Every hire Red Hat is getting so the product can get closer to windows, the farther Red Hat seperates themselves from the Linux culture.
Besides, RH's portal is just plain DOG UGLY.
Give the guys who designed that website a raise. I like it. So much better than standard linux-related website fare :)
Just in case someone moderated it....
Disturbing
by sophisto (slutty_pants@yourmomshouse.og) on Tuesday June 29, @01:23PM EDT (#)
(User Info) http://www.ungabunga.com
If yahoo get away with stealing users IP, they are in essence stealing the users ID.
I hope that other ISP's don't follow this & create a terrifying trend.
IP in this instance means INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY . Why don't you try reading a little bit more than the title of the article BEFORE POSTING. People like you are the reason I look both ways before crossing a greened intersection.
Catch a ride on the clue train, man. Please don't do this again.
-rah
I think its time to make a new internet, one where crap like this doesn't happen. By keeping things seperate (eg: one nation wide network for video+voice, one for commerce, one for industry communications, one for research, and one for the individuals) everyone could end up happy.
:)
One for commerce? Almost begs the question "What if we threw a party and nobody came?".... I personally would never want anything to do with junkmailnet
Yahoo defends the terms in the contract, saying it's trying to prevent itself from being sued over copyright infringements and wants the ability to promote its service.
Hrmmmm.....
Really, what ever happened to saying "We host your content, we make money off of the ads." Claiming the content is theirs to do with as they please is wrong. Their agreement is more likely to CREATE trouble for yahoo, because with a little bit of wordplay you could say Yahoo owns the content to kiddie-porn on such site and warez on another....
More than anything, I believe what we all should learn from this is that 99% of the lawyers out there are clueless, stupid, selfish people who have no disregard for anyone outside of their client.... Until their client learns that they are screwing over the people that they service.
The text is free online here:
http://photo.net/wtr/thebook/
The final beta of Win2000 was released some time ago, as I remember....
You can make personal versions and change and never release the source, because you never release the version you make. But if you distribute, all changes must be pub.
GPL'd software can NEVER NEVER NEVER be released as anything but GPL'd software. You can not make a proprietary version of the Linux kernel. Period.
:)
By proprietary I (an 99.9% of everyone else out there) *do not* simply mean a changed or altered source, but closed-source alterations. In fact, the second right the GPL gives you is "this liscense, which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute,and/or modify the software."
Under terms #2
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any protion of it, thus forming a work based on the program,... provided...:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that is whole or part contains or is derived from the program or any part therof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
That mean GPL'd programs remain GPL'd no matter what (unless you keep the code to yourself, no distributing). No proprietary distributions, no secrets, nothing of that sort. Your statement "The GPL does not require someone using GPLed code to make their changes available for download."is completely wrong if that person is going to distribute his product (which these people intend to do).
Of course, I've believed from the begining that these people are full of bull, "BeOS and Linux hybrid".... Heck, through some more buzzwords in there while you're at it!
Read The liscence. Read the source. Then code.
Taking BSD liscence stuff and repackaging and GPL'ing it isn't a good move for those looking for respect in either community. Those are the breaks :)
You see, I believe one of the best liscences out there is the "lesser" GPL, which was completely ommited in this comparison. The lGPL gives ALL software writers freedom to integrate libraries and programs into proprietary code, but those lGPL'd libraries and programs must still be freely availiable from the software writers in source code form. In other words, both proprietary-nonGPL'd software and free software benefit. Free software like Gtk+ can gain much greater support, and as more proprietary software houses jump onto the linux bandwagon, they will have things to add to and improve in Gtk+ itself. ;), it seems to me that the GPL actually is more geared to "free beer" rather than "freedom". :)?
Straight GPL has always beeen to restrictive in this area. GPL'd (not lGPL) libraries and programs can not be used IN ANY WAY in proprietary software. The GPL is for the advancement of "free" software, but only for "free" software authors. If it can't be used to help everyone, including evil proprietary coders
Isn't it time we re-name the "lesser General Public License"
The most popular and growing forms of advertisement and product placement is most evident in material and media that we cannot avoid. Take a look at the ads that come with you phone and cable bills. Look along the side of the interstate in many areas. You can't really close your eyes whil you drive or write a check for the bill. You can't even go bowling without running into tons of beer ads! I won't even go into junk mail (e- and realtime).... :).....
I've even seen roadmaps, that you pay money for, sport ads on top of the "less important" sections of a city. Whereas advertisements used to make things cheaper for the consumer, it's now become an "extra" source of revenue in many types of necessary-to-view media. Yes, even Austin Powers (the spy who shagged me) probably would have left a bit better tast in everyone's mouth without blatant product placement
So, unavoidable ads are the hottest property on the block, and why would corporations pass up selling that type of ad space if they can provide it?
When it gets down to it, the last thing I want to see in the mornings when I turn on my computer is a fscking ad for depends undergarments. It is my personal property, and the only property I own that carries tangible, baltant ads are magazines. (I do not own t-shirts that advertise, nor do I watch TV). Just because Phoenix has a widely used BIOS doesn't mean they should exploit thier customers like that! They make enough money from motherboard manufacturers now. If they want to make the bios'es for free in exchange for ads, the motherboard manufacturers probably wont pass on the savings to us, the consumers, the people who matter most.
Why are 486's cheap? Here's your mini economics course.
:)
:)
High Demand + Low Supply = High Selling Price
High Demand + High Supply = K-rad selling price
Low Demand + Low Supply = K-rad Selling Price
and of course....
Low Demand + High Supply = Really Really Low Selling Price ( - The 486 chips go here, though supply isn't all that high, unless it's relative to demand.)
They aren't cheap just because they are old, but because no product currently demand them. (This explains why the antique computer buisness exists
If there is a high demand for iToasters, then demand for parts for the iToasters also go up. If the supply for those parts begins to dry up (example: if they are made from old 486's, which are no longer in production, period), parts price go up, then that company is in trouble
Basing a new product on obsolete technology is bad bull for any company.
I'd rather refute you than moderate for blatant ignorance. :) However, trusting a GOOD computer shop is a much, much better idea than trusting the "Idea Box" :) :) :)
1) NOT ALL SHOPS ARE THE SAME.
- In fact, most of them suck. In a big way. Mine's not too bad, though I could definitely use a pay raise. (BTW, I live near Austin and am ready for a new job. E-mail me
2) At Fry's, Circuit City, and etc., the "tech" don't usually know JACK $HIT
- Truth. They are usually little more than glorified burger flippers. Every once an a while, you find someone who knows something, but it's very uncommon. They make up answers to questions they've never heard before. At a computer shop, the owners and managers don't have any use for people who don't know how to work a computer. Don't expect them to last long.
3) You are stupid.
- I hate being blunt, but if you get taken by an unreasonable computer store, it's nobody's fault but yourself. You also must be living in a hole to think they all overcharge. Any of them doing good, solid buisness offer better prices on new equipment much more regularly than bigger chains. If a computer store has a good reputation, go there. Why take chances? Even if you have no life, you can call up the BBB or just start asking around and checking prices. Unreasonable computer shops do not last very long though. They have to be very resoponsive to thier local reputation, because often that is all they have.
BTW, if you are going to complain about outrageous prices, start with insurance, auto repair, and apartment rent
I can understand trying to sell affordable computers, as I manage a computer store, but this stuff is really starting to annoy me.
When these type of machines come out, they market it as the greatest invention since sliced bread, and maybe 80% of the consumers buy into this wonderful invention that only cost $200. In reality, the devices are about as powerful as a LeMans powered by a hamster wheel. The consumer gets unhappy and taken again, can't return it because of the "no refunds" policy, and gets paranoid about the computer buisness and these fly-by-night operations in general.
Where it really annoys me is when people buy into the marketing, come to my shop, and ask for a Quad-PIII-500 with Warp Drive and expect to only pay $200 for it. No. It don't work that way. Personal computers, like it or not, are extremly individualistic machines. There are many options and many price ranges. You can't buy a '99 Camaro for $1000 from the dealerships, and the same type of reasoning applies to PCs. Get over it, consumers! Next time you by a computer, please get someone PC literate to go shopping with you. Quit looking for the cheapest way out. If you do, these marketers will keep on riding you, just like a bad car salesman or insurance salesman....
The republicans do cry about increasing the powers of law enforcement officials. They also cry the loudest about keeping thier butts out of private lives and matteres of the american people and minimal government control! It's not that dems are bad, but my opinion is that they have hurt more than helped in the past few years when it comes to personal freedoms.
:)
By the way, moderating me down then posting as an AC, all because of that minor poilitcal "Whoop!" is lame, I hope your mamma's proud
I read some nice arguments over at http://www.stand.org.uk/ that I agree with.
:) ?
:) !
First of all, can you name one instance where any type of police investigation was hampered because of encrypted email messages? It's a fear that the democrat half of the government has, that it's not going to be in complete control of everything about your life. It's a control issue, not a law inforcement issue!
Secondly, if you are going to be doing something really criminal or secret, you aren't going to stay within legal regulations as far as encryption goes, are you
There's a difference between protecting the public and controlling the public. If they really wanted to protect us, encrypting our private messages should be approved.
Note, it's not the "government" as a whole I'm concerned about. Just the half that wants to control our live. Bush and the republicans in 2000, baby
(These arguments are only intended to be used in the US)
I believe most of the problems that are comming around with the blantant abridging of rights is the realization that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation.
Freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but it should be my right NOT to disclose my identity. It should be my right to say whatever I want to about my employer without revealing info about who I am. DEFAMATION SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Period. Let the people who listen to me make up thier own judgement about whatever I say, and how credible it is.
This type of problem makes me sick. Where the problem is in this case is that somehow the judge has been convinced that basic human and (here in the states) American rights can be overlooked if they are being used for something that other people may not approve of. No. We can not do that. First, it starts small, but the next thing you know it will be illegal for newspapers to publish editorials because they defame American politicians. In fact, defamation is not a tool to destroy, but to improve! Without criticism and failure, we would not strive to better ourselves. Stockholders might not like it, but those are the breaks.......
Sorry to sidetrack, but the main issue is this: Freedom is freedom. Denial of these rights because of the intent to which they will be used means that this country is not truly free. Saying that Free Speech rights should be denied because they do not cover freedom to do it anonymously or use through defamation makes about as much fscking sense as "All men are created equal. But those indians, they aren't men, they are savage creatures, and deserve no rights." Next it's going to be "Yes, you have the right to bear arms. But, the only arms that part of the bill of rights cover are these rolling pins. Maybe you can knead the attackers to death."
There are times when I am proud to be an American. But in this case, I just feel shame.
Seriously, if they were real people, their IQ wouldn't be much higher than that of the average middle-aged McDonald's employee. Sure, they deal with deep ET issues and all that, but the content displayed by the on X-files have been dumbed down to the level of your average talk show :)
Welp, the fileselector applet he wants is so people can load backgrounds a lot easier more than anything, it's a long way from becoming an actual desktop shell. However, raster is interested in that. It's hard to say what he wants first. E2.0 was supposed to not only be the window manager, but a window manager and window system. He's changed that plan a little.... but I won't spoil it for ya'll. :)
I've never kept working at a place that thinks it can treat me like trash. I deserve more respect than that, and so did Raster. :), and he did not want to work there anymore. Plain and simple. Why should he be RH's slave when others will pay him to work in a supportive environment?
Loyalty is earned. If that loyalty is betrayed, it deserves to be taken away.
If you get paid to write software, you want a productive environment to work in, to do good work, to deliver your product, and the management should support those who are working for them. The better you treat your workers, espicially with this type of product development, the better work they do. Plain logic. Red Hat's management gave raster trouble, made the environment bad (besides, NC SUCKS!
Human beings are incredible assets. Human resources fit under operating expenses.
I remember, infact, having CD changer programs made especiallly for multi-CD holding drives that would switch the running disks on demand for me. :)