While "terrorism" is very broadly defined in the colloquial sense, isn't it fairly narrowly defined in the legal sense? Any lawyers/law students know the answer? It seems that a decent definition would be something along the lines "A person engaging in an act to terrorize masses of other people through destructive/lethal means."
Given that we are now arresting methamphetamine dealers for producing chemical weapons of mass destruction, among other things, I would say no.
What's with the anti-french sentiments? I really don't get it. Don't forget that without the french you wouldn't have won the war of independence and you wouldn't have the statue of liberty.
Yes, but after our war for independance France went into a serious decline. It got much much worse after Napoleon. WWII finished them off. Now they don't even fight their own battles anymore. There is not a lot to be proud of with respect to France these days. It is sad, but true.
only country to attempt to go to the moon (russians never wanted to go, nor planned to go) sending shit out the solar system is nothing, u just push it, first to discover life on mars? we'll see...
The Russians planned and tried to go to the moon. But when we got there first, they gave out that story of "Nyah, we never wanted to go to that dirty ol' moon, anyhow!" (insert pout and kicking at the dirt). The soviet space program is well documented and the records have been declassified.
Sending stuff out of the solar system is not nothing. I mean there is the matter of escaping the gravity well of the sun. It requires some interesting physics.
Life on Mars, well, that is debatable. Scientists have claimed to find simple fossilized life in meteorites that were thought to have come from Mars, and there were I think at one time claims that there were were bacteria-like lifeforms on rocks that were brought back from Mars, but the jury is still out. ET has not shown up yet. Still these were NASA discoveries.
"Which actually raises a good question. What is the US comparing fingerprints against? Do we have terrorist fingerprints on file? I would guess that we don't have too many."
This is a great question. The information I read was that the US was trying to make sure the person entering the country is the same person who the visa was assigned to. Now, do they actually fingerprint people at the visa issuance time? Do they actually scan the fingerprint page and compare it?
I don't think so.
Actually they do, unless you are from Saudi Arabia, in which case you can hop on the net and get a quick visa without any human being a part of the approval process. This is also how the 9/11 terrorists got their visas, and the program is still being used anyway.
Now I'm not sure what MS does to "enhance" these encryption types, but there it is, for what it's worth... (I wonder if Whitfield knows his name is contained within MS Word?;)
Probably they have embraced and extended them, rendering them incompatable with other products which use such standards and less secure than they would have been otherwise.:)
Double Jeopardy is the second round, with the 400/800/1200/1600/2000 values. I don't know why the other post'er listed the first round values.
The poster listed the first round values to illustrate the point that questions in both double jeopardy and the first round are now worth double what they once were. Oddly, they gave this away by beginning the sentence with "They raised the dollar amounts to." They also declined to phrase their answer in the form of a question!:P
Honestly, slashdotters not clicking links or reading articles or reading blurbs or reading headlines, and now they don't read whole sentences! I have no idea how such people get around on the site at all!:P
except that by no means was clinton a fiscal-conservative. His policies were severely hampered by the election of a republican house majority 2 years into his presidency.
Not fiscally conservative? He was the first US president in a damn long time to create a budget with a surplus (which the Republicans undermined by asking for more spending, BTW). He was the last one, too. Thank you Bush I hope the 500billion dollar deficit and 5 trillion dollar debt crush al-qaeda like they did the USSR!:P
Ok, I am assuming that you are trying to indicate whay institutional bankers are still investing in SCO, just as Bank of America, et al. were doing with Parmalat up until very recently. But this viewpoint overlooks a large number of issues that I don't see an institutional banker with ANY legal screening missing (you do legal screening of these claims, right?). OK, even without legal screening, some analysts have been saying some interesting things about SCO. IANAL, however, though I read court cases as a hobby.
IANAB(roker|anker), but IMHO the people who are investing in the stock are investing in it because they expect it to rise. There are some who will hold onto the stock until the case is settled, and some who will hold it indefinitely, but for now, it is apparent even to slashdotters that investing in SCO seems like a good idea if your only goal is to buy stock at a lower price than that at which you sell it and thus make money. Even those who call for unmitigated destruction of SCO have described plans to make money on the fall of the stock by selling short.
The point is that stock brokers and bankers are in business to make money. All stock buys are a calculated risk, a gamble that the price will one day be higher than it is now. It is clear that regardless of the outcome of this trial, there has been a short period in which hysteria and increased interest in a company which most people never heard of before the trial (by that I mean most non-geeks) have driven up the price of the stock. This alone IMHO justifies the actions of the investors. It does not mean they think SCO will win at all.
> > My position on the behavior of The SCO Group is that they're a bunch of lying fuckweasels who deserve nothing less than a forcible sodomization with a diamond-grit-encrusted Louisville Slugger wielded by SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson himself. > > You are being a little vague, could you draw me a picture?
No, but I know a website where there's this guy with about half of the picture... Fark Photoshop, anyone?
Hmm. I was thinking of goatse.cx. And curse your name for making me think of it, too!:)
their 'fake evidence' around the video tape of the IE uninstall was shown to not be fake the next day in court. it was just the news media already reported it that same day. what other 'fake evidence' do you know about? i'd like to hear about it.
UmmHmmm. Right. Look, I don't know about the rest of you but I would have to say that I put more weight in Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact on this case than on the poorly written ramblings of "anonymous coward." Clearly Judge Jackson's writing was longer than one day after said evidence was presented, therefore his assertion that Microsoft faked evidence must stand.
Well, IBM is hardly any more objective than Microsoft. They're rooting for an alternative to Microsoft, which makes them just as biased.
Erm, actually no. IBM is the most objective, and provably so. IBM makes money selling all sorts of software. They make a buttload selling Windows based servers and desktops. They also made teh MS monopoly possible.
IBM makes their own operating systems. AIX, OS/390, and they used to make OS/2. Every one of these systems is replacable by Linux. That makes Linux a competitor to IBM. IBM has spent billions and billions of dollars developing these systems. Thay have expertise and patents at every level of computing from the pc to the supercomputer. They have a lot to lose.
And yet, they chose to pump billions of R&D and marketing dollars into Linux. Why? Because IBM is fundamentally and engineering company, and engineers try to find the best tool for the job. Linux turned out to work best, so they are touting it for their customers.
...all that is left to light this match is a batch of new Indian software products to compete with US products. That's what really doesn't exist today, and is really the key to setting off protectionist legislation. When you start seeing "Grand Theft Auto: Kashmir" and it's a best seller, or SOE decides to fire all those people in San Diego working on Star Wars Galaxies and moves the development to Hyderabad, well then... there will be some Congresspeople chalking up some new bills on the hill. Remember of you will (can't find a good link to old story) that Bill Gates openly threatened the US Government with moving vast numbers of jobs to India and closing entire sections of the Redmond campus when the Justice Department was right up at his throat with anti trust. This threat resonated in Washington, both the city and the state. If anybody has any links to stories that have his quotes, they wern't veiled threats, they were openly stated that his R&D would be better spent overseas.
IIRC the threat was that Microsoft would move its headquarters to Vancouver, BC (which is in Canada). Also that the stock market would crash if Microsoft was hurt. Hmm, the second one happened, sorta...
Have you considered the possibility that maybe the problem is not with Google specifically, but with the Web itself? Maybe the reason you found mostly reviews a few years ago vs. commercial sites now is that a few years ago, the web contained mostly reviews and personal pages, but now it's mostly people trying to sell stuff.
Maybe Google is simply accurately reflecting what's out there.
That is an important point. Now it would not be so bad if all this was were commercial vs noncommercial sites. But the real problem is that commercial sites are not informative. Most of them, sometimes including the manufacturer's site, only include the name of an item and a price. Specs are spotty at best and there is very little other information. This makes it difficult to be an informed consumer, which is basically going back to the old war we have always had where vendors do not want you to be an informed consumer and are therefore not going to expend effort giving you the data you need to become one.
A lot of commercial sites can be cut out by adding "site:org" to the search. For a lot of things that will get you the no-nonsense facts you used to get in the old days. Unfortunately it's a matter of time until all the sleazy huckster sites add a.org alias, and it's already happening. But for right now it kind of works - take advantage while it lasts.
Umm, they'll give you whatever space you want if you get a real account instead of using the demo. For a fee, of course. IIRC, some of their larger customers include Yahoo, AOL, and General Motors. They can handle home users and small businesses too. So if you want more space, just ask. Last I heard, they have about 15 TB free.
Umm, the site says that the real account is $10/month and gives 500MB of space. They don't say you can use more. How am I supposed to negotiate a larger account? Ring up their CEO like GM did?
The fact is the person I replied to used a phrase meant to mean 'You're lying and I'm calling you on it!' to which I replied 'No, he didn't lie.'
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to call bullshit on you now. No, calling bullshit does not mean you are lying. Calling bullshit means what you just said was bullshit. In fact it is most often used when the person whose bullshit is getting called is not intentionally lying, or at least that has been the usage in my experience. Bullshit is a lie, but lying requires intent. You can spout bullshit without lying because bullshit is ubiquitous and in fact many of our cherished institutions and much of our civilization and culture are in fact based on bullshit and founded on bullshit premises, perpetuating bullshit ideas.
I hope this has been educational for you. Please endeavour to educate yourself so that you do not perpetuate bullshit. Only you can stop the spread fo bullshit in your vicinity. Call bullshit today!:)
Yahoo owns both Inktomi and Overture... for them to be dumping Google and moving to the suppliers that they own outright is something that was easy to see coming, the only question was when.
Whatever. Yahoo has no hope of designing a search algorithm better than google's within a few months. They might switch to one of the others, but no one will care. Google will still be the best search. Personally, I think Yahoo just fucked themselves because using Google's search might have brought back some of the eyeballs they lost to Google. Yahoo belongs firmly in the dustbin of internet history as a failed company who failed to properly grok the net.
I honestly think that a lot of the current commentators are dead on when they say that this is a "fad" and this will eventually balance itself out. Wait until some corporations get a gut full of having their code halfway across the globe. Most companies aren't willing to let you work at home and yet they're willing to hire hoards of people they'll never meet to write their code? Heh. This will right itself eventually.
You'd better hope so, buddy. Personally I am pretty worried; perhaps I should brush up on my Hindi. Bollywood just beat Hollywood in production and also has announced that it will allow people online to market their products for free whereas Jack Valenti has decided he does not want such help. Now Bangalore has surpassed Silicon Valley in number of jobs but NEVER in cost of living. With even US firms shipping jobs to India like mad, all that is left to light this match is a batch of new Indian software products to compete with US products.
Meanwhile our IP laws mean that it is very undesirable to work on new tech in the US because it will either be shelved, owned by a corporation, or some other company with a patent will make sure you can never do it. But these problems do not exist in India. Neither do they put people in jail for developing crypto software and revere engineering for interoperability. Free Software has no stigma in India and is used where practical unlike in the US where we would rather waste money than do it right.
India is a mixed economy and I've never known an Indian to be afraid of being called a Communist, or for that matter to use the term as a pejorative. Again, collective or community economy is used where practical and private industry is used where it makes more sense. None of this business of endangering the electric power infrastructure in the name of corporate profits.
If there is anything holding India back now, it is government corruption, civil strife, and the struggle with Pakistan. But who knows, maybe they will get that all down to a low simmer so it does not disrupt their blossoming economy. Remember, they only won their independance less than 60 years ago. These things take time.
Try XDrive. My brother works there, and no you couldn't possibly generate enough data in your lifetime to fill it up.
Er, 500MB might have seemed like a lot in 1989, but it is pitiful now. So maybe this is useful for some documents which you don't mind sending unencrypted over the net to be stored with a whole bunch of other people's data on what may be an insecure server, but otherwise, no. It certainly doesn't work as a real backup and disaster recovery solution.
> You don't want developers working for you who don't understand basic principles of copyright law
Well, it's an arguable point, but I have enough trouble hiring good people to bother with quizzing them about copyright law, even in this market. As long as the leads know where everything is coming from, it's usually not a huge problem, and I certainly understand the "Programmer's Privilege" mentality wrt paying for software. Furthermore, my guess is that most of the slashdotters debating finer points of licencing can't code worth crap.
The point is that you don't want plagiarizers in your company. Generally this is something you learn not to do in school, but if you don't and your company gets caught you lose your company. Missing something so basic as not ganking code off the net at random and using it shoudl certainly be a firable offense.
How about telling this to RedHat? They're charging for open source software (AKA RHEL). Don't give me "There's always Fedora". That doesn't change the fact that they're charging for other people's work. And don't give me the "They're charging for support" line either. If they're charging for support then they can give away RHEL and sell service contracts. RedHat just did an end run around the GPL. If I were an OSS developer I would be mad as hell that someone is making money off of my software with compensating me.
I don't like what Redhat did either, but you're the first person to claim they violated the GPL. If RedHat includes the changes they made with the distribution, then they are following the GPL. They do contribute their changes back to maintainers as well, though this is not required. They also hire some of these people. It is annoying that they have a mixed distribution with RHEL which means that you can't necessarily distribut it at will if you are a customer, but anyone who receives it can of course distribute the GPL'd bits without fear of molestation from RedHat. So it's all kosher with the GPL.
Unfortunately the big capability that's missing from that is NTFS write support - Linux doesn't have proper support for writing to an NTFS file system, which is a common use for Ghost..
It doesn't need it if you are using dd. Ghost is not used for writing to ntfs, it is used to copy ntfs. Yes, it does this by creating and writing to an ntfs filesystem. But if all you want is to exaactly image an ntfs filesystem then dd will work. You don't have to write TO the filesystem, you just have to be able to put the filesystem and its contents on disk, and since dd is just throwing bits around it will do this.
Yes, and the reference was to a fantasy role-playing game in which geeks pretend to be able to do many things they wish they could do but never will. Your point was what, again?
Slashdot Mirror
While "terrorism" is very broadly defined in the colloquial sense, isn't it fairly narrowly defined in the legal sense? Any lawyers/law students know the answer? It seems that a decent definition would be something along the lines "A person engaging in an act to terrorize masses of other people through destructive/lethal means."
Given that we are now arresting methamphetamine dealers for producing chemical weapons of mass destruction, among other things, I would say no.
What's with the anti-french sentiments? I really don't get it. Don't forget that without the french you wouldn't have won the war of independence and you wouldn't have the statue of liberty.
Yes, but after our war for independance France went into a serious decline. It got much much worse after Napoleon. WWII finished them off. Now they don't even fight their own battles anymore. There is not a lot to be proud of with respect to France these days. It is sad, but true.
only country to attempt to go to the moon (russians never wanted to go, nor planned to go) sending shit out the solar system is nothing, u just push it, first to discover life on mars? we'll see...
The Russians planned and tried to go to the moon. But when we got there first, they gave out that story of "Nyah, we never wanted to go to that dirty ol' moon, anyhow!" (insert pout and kicking at the dirt). The soviet space program is well documented and the records have been declassified.
Sending stuff out of the solar system is not nothing. I mean there is the matter of escaping the gravity well of the sun. It requires some interesting physics.
Life on Mars, well, that is debatable. Scientists have claimed to find simple fossilized life in meteorites that were thought to have come from Mars, and there were I think at one time claims that there were were bacteria-like lifeforms on rocks that were brought back from Mars, but the jury is still out. ET has not shown up yet. Still these were NASA discoveries.
"Which actually raises a good question. What is the US comparing fingerprints against? Do we have terrorist fingerprints on file? I would guess that we don't have too many."
This is a great question. The information I read was that the US was trying to make sure the person entering the country is the same person who the visa was assigned to. Now, do they actually fingerprint people at the visa issuance time? Do they actually scan the fingerprint page and compare it?
I don't think so.
Actually they do, unless you are from Saudi Arabia, in which case you can hop on the net and get a quick visa without any human being a part of the approval process. This is also how the 9/11 terrorists got their visas, and the program is still being used anyway.
Now I'm not sure what MS does to "enhance" these encryption types, but there it is, for what it's worth... (I wonder if Whitfield knows his name is contained within MS Word? ;)
Probably they have embraced and extended them, rendering them incompatable with other products which use such standards and less secure than they would have been otherwise. :)
Double Jeopardy is the second round, with the 400/800/1200/1600/2000 values. I don't know why the other post'er listed the first round values.
The poster listed the first round values to illustrate the point that questions in both double jeopardy and the first round are now worth double what they once were. Oddly, they gave this away by beginning the sentence with "They raised the dollar amounts to." They also declined to phrase their answer in the form of a question! :P
Honestly, slashdotters not clicking links or reading articles or reading blurbs or reading headlines, and now they don't read whole sentences! I have no idea how such people get around on the site at all! :P
"spelt it wrong"
Spelled it wrong
I guess even non-shitstained geeks fuck up sometimes!
Actually, spelt is the correct spelling, though spelled is accepted now.
except that by no means was clinton a fiscal-conservative. His policies were severely hampered by the election of a republican house majority 2 years into his presidency.
Not fiscally conservative? He was the first US president in a damn long time to create a budget with a surplus (which the Republicans undermined by asking for more spending, BTW). He was the last one, too. Thank you Bush I hope the 500billion dollar deficit and 5 trillion dollar debt crush al-qaeda like they did the USSR! :P
Ok, I am assuming that you are trying to indicate whay institutional bankers are still investing in SCO, just as Bank of America, et al. were doing with Parmalat up until very recently. But this viewpoint overlooks a large number of issues that I don't see an institutional banker with ANY legal screening missing (you do legal screening of these claims, right?). OK, even without legal screening, some analysts have been saying some interesting things about SCO. IANAL, however, though I read court cases as a hobby.
IANAB(roker|anker), but IMHO the people who are investing in the stock are investing in it because they expect it to rise. There are some who will hold onto the stock until the case is settled, and some who will hold it indefinitely, but for now, it is apparent even to slashdotters that investing in SCO seems like a good idea if your only goal is to buy stock at a lower price than that at which you sell it and thus make money. Even those who call for unmitigated destruction of SCO have described plans to make money on the fall of the stock by selling short.
The point is that stock brokers and bankers are in business to make money. All stock buys are a calculated risk, a gamble that the price will one day be higher than it is now. It is clear that regardless of the outcome of this trial, there has been a short period in which hysteria and increased interest in a company which most people never heard of before the trial (by that I mean most non-geeks) have driven up the price of the stock. This alone IMHO justifies the actions of the investors. It does not mean they think SCO will win at all.
> > My position on the behavior of The SCO Group is that they're a bunch of lying fuckweasels who deserve nothing less than a forcible sodomization with a diamond-grit-encrusted Louisville Slugger wielded by SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson himself.
>
> You are being a little vague, could you draw me a picture?
No, but I know a website where there's this guy with about half of the picture... Fark Photoshop, anyone?
Hmm. I was thinking of goatse.cx. And curse your name for making me think of it, too! :)
their 'fake evidence' around the video tape of the IE uninstall was shown to not be fake the next day in court. it was just the news media already reported it that same day. what other 'fake evidence' do you know about? i'd like to hear about it.
UmmHmmm. Right. Look, I don't know about the rest of you but I would have to say that I put more weight in Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact on this case than on the poorly written ramblings of "anonymous coward." Clearly Judge Jackson's writing was longer than one day after said evidence was presented, therefore his assertion that Microsoft faked evidence must stand.
Well, IBM is hardly any more objective than Microsoft. They're rooting for an alternative to Microsoft, which makes them just as biased.
Erm, actually no. IBM is the most objective, and provably so. IBM makes money selling all sorts of software. They make a buttload selling Windows based servers and desktops. They also made teh MS monopoly possible.
IBM makes their own operating systems. AIX, OS/390, and they used to make OS/2. Every one of these systems is replacable by Linux. That makes Linux a competitor to IBM. IBM has spent billions and billions of dollars developing these systems. Thay have expertise and patents at every level of computing from the pc to the supercomputer. They have a lot to lose.
And yet, they chose to pump billions of R&D and marketing dollars into Linux. Why? Because IBM is fundamentally and engineering company, and engineers try to find the best tool for the job. Linux turned out to work best, so they are touting it for their customers.
i believe that "Duck Tape" was the term used by the US military before somone realized that it was useful for patching leaks in ventilation systems
Were that true, I shudder to think what they were doing with it before then, or what it meant to the ducks. What else do you believe? :)
IIRC the threat was that Microsoft would move its headquarters to Vancouver, BC (which is in Canada). Also that the stock market would crash if Microsoft was hurt. Hmm, the second one happened, sorta...
Have you considered the possibility that maybe the problem is not with Google specifically, but with the Web itself? Maybe the reason you found mostly reviews a few years ago vs. commercial sites now is that a few years ago, the web contained mostly reviews and personal pages, but now it's mostly people trying to sell stuff.
Maybe Google is simply accurately reflecting what's out there.
That is an important point. Now it would not be so bad if all this was were commercial vs noncommercial sites. But the real problem is that commercial sites are not informative. Most of them, sometimes including the manufacturer's site, only include the name of an item and a price. Specs are spotty at best and there is very little other information. This makes it difficult to be an informed consumer, which is basically going back to the old war we have always had where vendors do not want you to be an informed consumer and are therefore not going to expend effort giving you the data you need to become one.
A lot of commercial sites can be cut out by adding "site:org" to the search. For a lot of things that will get you the no-nonsense facts you used to get in the old days. Unfortunately it's a matter of time until all the sleazy huckster sites add a .org alias, and it's already happening. But for right now it kind of works - take advantage while it lasts.
Yeah I think I found one already!
Umm, they'll give you whatever space you want if you get a real account instead of using the demo. For a fee, of course. IIRC, some of their larger customers include Yahoo, AOL, and General Motors. They can handle home users and small businesses too. So if you want more space, just ask. Last I heard, they have about 15 TB free.
Umm, the site says that the real account is $10/month and gives 500MB of space. They don't say you can use more. How am I supposed to negotiate a larger account? Ring up their CEO like GM did?
The fact is the person I replied to used a phrase meant to mean 'You're lying and I'm calling you on it!' to which I replied 'No, he didn't lie.'
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to call bullshit on you now. No, calling bullshit does not mean you are lying. Calling bullshit means what you just said was bullshit. In fact it is most often used when the person whose bullshit is getting called is not intentionally lying, or at least that has been the usage in my experience. Bullshit is a lie, but lying requires intent. You can spout bullshit without lying because bullshit is ubiquitous and in fact many of our cherished institutions and much of our civilization and culture are in fact based on bullshit and founded on bullshit premises, perpetuating bullshit ideas.
I hope this has been educational for you. Please endeavour to educate yourself so that you do not perpetuate bullshit. Only you can stop the spread fo bullshit in your vicinity. Call bullshit today! :)
Yahoo owns both Inktomi and Overture... for them to be dumping Google and moving to the suppliers that they own outright is something that was easy to see coming, the only question was when.
Whatever. Yahoo has no hope of designing a search algorithm better than google's within a few months. They might switch to one of the others, but no one will care. Google will still be the best search. Personally, I think Yahoo just fucked themselves because using Google's search might have brought back some of the eyeballs they lost to Google. Yahoo belongs firmly in the dustbin of internet history as a failed company who failed to properly grok the net.
I honestly think that a lot of the current commentators are dead on when they say that this is a "fad" and this will eventually balance itself out. Wait until some corporations get a gut full of having their code halfway across the globe. Most companies aren't willing to let you work at home and yet they're willing to hire hoards of people they'll never meet to write their code? Heh. This will right itself eventually.
You'd better hope so, buddy. Personally I am pretty worried; perhaps I should brush up on my Hindi. Bollywood just beat Hollywood in production and also has announced that it will allow people online to market their products for free whereas Jack Valenti has decided he does not want such help. Now Bangalore has surpassed Silicon Valley in number of jobs but NEVER in cost of living. With even US firms shipping jobs to India like mad, all that is left to light this match is a batch of new Indian software products to compete with US products.
Meanwhile our IP laws mean that it is very undesirable to work on new tech in the US because it will either be shelved, owned by a corporation, or some other company with a patent will make sure you can never do it. But these problems do not exist in India. Neither do they put people in jail for developing crypto software and revere engineering for interoperability. Free Software has no stigma in India and is used where practical unlike in the US where we would rather waste money than do it right.
India is a mixed economy and I've never known an Indian to be afraid of being called a Communist, or for that matter to use the term as a pejorative. Again, collective or community economy is used where practical and private industry is used where it makes more sense. None of this business of endangering the electric power infrastructure in the name of corporate profits.
If there is anything holding India back now, it is government corruption, civil strife, and the struggle with Pakistan. But who knows, maybe they will get that all down to a low simmer so it does not disrupt their blossoming economy. Remember, they only won their independance less than 60 years ago. These things take time.
Try XDrive. My brother works there, and no you couldn't possibly generate enough data in your lifetime to fill it up.
Er, 500MB might have seemed like a lot in 1989, but it is pitiful now. So maybe this is useful for some documents which you don't mind sending unencrypted over the net to be stored with a whole bunch of other people's data on what may be an insecure server, but otherwise, no. It certainly doesn't work as a real backup and disaster recovery solution.
> You don't want developers working for you who don't understand basic principles of copyright law
Well, it's an arguable point, but I have enough trouble hiring good people to bother with quizzing them about copyright law, even in this market. As long as the leads know where everything is coming from, it's usually not a huge problem, and I certainly understand the "Programmer's Privilege" mentality wrt paying for software. Furthermore, my guess is that most of the slashdotters debating finer points of licencing can't code worth crap.
The point is that you don't want plagiarizers in your company. Generally this is something you learn not to do in school, but if you don't and your company gets caught you lose your company. Missing something so basic as not ganking code off the net at random and using it shoudl certainly be a firable offense.
How about telling this to RedHat? They're charging for open source software (AKA RHEL). Don't give me "There's always Fedora". That doesn't change the fact that they're charging for other people's work. And don't give me the "They're charging for support" line either. If they're charging for support then they can give away RHEL and sell service contracts. RedHat just did an end run around the GPL. If I were an OSS developer I would be mad as hell that someone is making money off of my software with compensating me.
I don't like what Redhat did either, but you're the first person to claim they violated the GPL. If RedHat includes the changes they made with the distribution, then they are following the GPL. They do contribute their changes back to maintainers as well, though this is not required. They also hire some of these people. It is annoying that they have a mixed distribution with RHEL which means that you can't necessarily distribut it at will if you are a customer, but anyone who receives it can of course distribute the GPL'd bits without fear of molestation from RedHat. So it's all kosher with the GPL.
Unfortunately the big capability that's missing from that is NTFS write support - Linux doesn't have proper support for writing to an NTFS file system, which is a common use for Ghost..
It doesn't need it if you are using dd. Ghost is not used for writing to ntfs, it is used to copy ntfs. Yes, it does this by creating and writing to an ntfs filesystem. But if all you want is to exaactly image an ntfs filesystem then dd will work. You don't have to write TO the filesystem, you just have to be able to put the filesystem and its contents on disk, and since dd is just throwing bits around it will do this.
"gets to do girls at pub "
please, this is slashdot. ^_~
Yes, and the reference was to a fantasy role-playing game in which geeks pretend to be able to do many things they wish they could do but never will. Your point was what, again?