You forgot to mention an important point: Anybody who selects a hardware RAID solution should check the management facilities first, especially the notification about failed disks and what you do when your RAID controller fails. Even if one doesn't need hotswap, one needs a notification first that one's redundancy has gone. There are hardware raid kernel modules that don't even write out a syslog message in case of disk failure.
Two or three years ago, I had RAID controllers in hosted (read: cheaply rented) Dell systems where the available management software was horrible and where I switched to software RAID for just that reason. (Sorry, don't remember the exact brand any more, it was not aacraid. Therefore I recommend to check that issue.) The lesser performance was not relevant in that case, but the ability to integrate it into our Nagios monitoring was essential. aacraid is OK nowadays, but not all use that.
Oh, you mean the article that conveniently forgets to mention that the source he cites (the Spiegel article) is part of the big public outcry over these moron judges? And who also conveniently forgot to mention that the decisions by the judges were sacked by appelate courts immediately?
Yes, these were horrible incidents. No, it is not a generaly accepted public policy in Germany to let violence to islamic women happen -- quite to the contrary. If you always take occasions of moronic judge decisions to portrait the public majority opinion of a country, you do your case a disfavor.
But then, such tabloid stories seem to be more interesting than discussions about existing conflicts that take place currently in many European and Mediterranean countries, e.g., the whole veils-in-public-places discussion in France, Germany, Turkey, and other countries.
While there is a breeding conflict between multiculturism and Women's Rights in Germany, you took the completely wrong incident to illustrate your case. That judge simply was a moron, and there was not only a very public outcry, but her decision was immediately sacked in the appelate court as well.
The more interesting part is the fight over the allowance of traditional islamic women clothing (in particular, the veil) that takes place in Germany -- and in many other countries as well, e.g., in Turkey. As an example, there is lots of public support to forbid the islamic veil in schools -- but the permission to wear christian veils (by Christian nuns) or those jewish caps (sorry, don't know their name quite now, and dict.leo.org doesn't help me either here:-) are not changed at the same time. To tie it back to the article, the French are at least more consequent with their secularism than the Germans are.
For the record, I have nothing against wearing religious symbols in the public, be it in school or somewhere else. At the same time, as a society, we need to support and defend those who don't want to wear such symbols and are forced by their family or neighbourhood.
I am under the impression that chips are not allowed in the production of French wines. I could be wrong, but I think that French law requires this.
I wrote about CA and NZ wines, mostly. In fact, I don't know about French wine regulations and if chip-oaking is allowed there. The winemakers where we buy our wines regularly use oak barrels or stainless steel tanks. I've not only tasted it, but visited their cellars and know most of the winemakers for years.:-) In the end, it boils down to tastings and trust.
That said, I want to emphasize two things: I don't condemn the CA winemakers. (I have never been to NZ, so I refrain from comments about them.) They have a market that they cater for; and I'm fine with that. Well, one needs quite some tries before one finds the really good ones -- but that's the same in every wine region of the world. And while CA vintneries have been the first where I encountered chip wines, currently German winemakers demand that they are allowed to use this technology, too. Don't know about the French folks, though. Local grumbling won't stop that, I'm afraid. In fact, the sad story is -- as told above -- that trust and many tastings is the only way to appreciate a winemaker: There are no regulations that enforce that winemakers must tell interested parties how (s)he made her or his wine.
But then, making it more easy would make the life of wine afficionados boring, wouldn't it?
I have weird taste in wines though. Probably very American, depending on what you think American taste in wines is. I prefer to taste the grapes rather than the barrel, so I don't think it's necessarily so much of a sin to age in stainless casks. I absolutely despise Cabernet, for instance, because the smoky barrel taste is so overpoweringly strong it's like drinking liquid jerky.
I couldn't agree with you more. And additionally, they're chip wines, most of them. (Yes, I can taste the difference between chips and barrel in blind tastings; done that many time.) But on our wine trips to Oregon and St.Barbara, we found quite some winemakers who didn't follow the Napa lead and made fresh and interesting wines. These were mostly boutique shops, though, and there are some good small producers in the Valley, too. I remember being impressed by Araujo and Jericho; still oaky, but with lots of interesting black fruits.
But then, you get crap everywhere. Here in Germany, there is a Riesling called "Niersteiner Gutes Domtal" which goes mostly in export; to UK and the US. Together with "Liebfrauenmilch" we call those rieslings "the German revenge for the lost 2nd world war" because they are so unbelievable bad. And one must take note that in Nierstein itself some of our best rieslings are produced. (You can take that with a grain of salt, from my home it's just a 30 minutes drive to them, so the Rheinhessen and Pfalz wines are my local wines.:-)
What a complete and utter load of garbage. (And yes, I read your response to osu-neko that showed that you didn't understand a thing at all.)
So, let's try it again: Many domains exist for other purposes than giving the names of Web sites. For example, I have some domains that are used only for email and for nothing else. This means that there will be an email address mbox@domain.tld, but no www.domain.tld. No IP address is associated, nothing. Technically, in the DNS, these domains have no A records associated at all, just an MX record and 2 or 3 NS records (and the SOA).
No Web sites, and that's OK and no cybersquatting either. Go back to your dorm, and learn something about DNS, and something about domain names and where they are used. Note, for more than IP address mapping. Then come back.
If I attach an arbitrary USB stick to my Linux system, no virus infection happens. It's not as if the attack vector of external storage is existant on any system.
Amen. And the same can be said about morphium in the last weeks, when the pain really gets hard -- it's a shame that it's so hard to come by. (Here in Germany, one gets it if the dying person is in the hospital; but if one has a dying parent in home care, it's almost impossible to get some for emergency situations, e.g., for the night.)
My father died from liver cancer last year, and a very good friend of mine is dying from lung cancer right now. (He has metastases [sp?] and last week new cancer cells were detected in his brain water.) Seeing those loved persons disappear slowly, time over time, is one of the hardest things to watch. When my grandma died by a stroke, I thought it was hard. I didn't know how hard it is to watch a loved one dying over months and years.
You're writing was perfectly understandable, even for me as a non-native English speaker. I suspect that the GP obviously chose to misunderstand you intently, as it was inconvenient for his own opinion.
Almost everytime this is already done in the proceedings after your birth by your parents and the hospital office staff (sometimes before the birth when registering with the birth hospital...)
This is not true.
You register it when you apply for a Lohnsteuerkarte (income tax card) at your local commune. The application form has a field where you need to put it in explicitly. (As the CEO of a German company, I'm actually involved in such bureaucratic affairs when some young guys show up without an income tax card.)
You can only stop your automatic church payments by officially declaring you are no longer member of this church.
This sounds as if everybody would automatically pay church membership fees if he doesn't declare so.
For the information of non-German readers: It's exactly the other way round. One needs to declare explicitly that one is a member of one of these churches. Only then the membership fee is collected by the state. The IRS takes a significant chunk of that money as a processing fee before it passes it on to the church organization. Actually, that's the reason why only large churches use this state contract possibility -- smaller churches cannot afford the IRS fees.
You interpreted me wrong, or I expressed myself badly. I didn't want to throw mud at OSS projects. That's why I wrote that amarok is OK and that I don't want to denigrate their work. (I use it while I'm writing this, after all.)
I'm arguing against the statement that unpaid volunteer work at Debian produces inherently better software than paid work, be it for Open Source projects or for proprietary products. In my experience, the issue of payment and code quality are not statistically related. Besides, much work for major OSS projects is paid nowadays -- after all, I also pay my own staff to work on Open Source software.
Why I don't fix it? Well, do you have a time machine for me, to give me the additional 24 hours per day that I would like to have? (And I'd take another 24 hours for the night...;-) I am engaged in some projects that interest me most, and that fills up my spare time. Sometimes I help fixing other projects; but this is not always taken well.
For example, just two weeks ago, I posted bug reports and fixes to OpenCA, an often-cited open source PKI project. No reaction at all, not even an ack that they received it. I have more than a dozen in-house fixes for that project; I asked how to submit them. Still no reaction. Do you really think that I spent the effort to clean them up and submit them after that reception? If you would do so, you're holier than I am; I'll spend my time where it's taken as a positive contribution.
That's the other side of Open Source development, and that's not different to some proprietary software companies that I encountered. The OP's bragging about Open Source volunteer work quality doesn't describe the reality, which is gray and not black-and-white.
First, I develop free software since 1983. Being a member of the LaTeX core team and being involved in development and maintenance of several high-profile TeX tools, I know what code quality is -- our code runs with very few errors, and obvious problems are resolved before release time, not after.
Second, the assertion is very fine if it is in. But that such obvious errors are not fixed before the release is rushed out is simply sloppy work that would not happen at our Open Source projects.
Third, as the CEO of a consulting company, I seem to work with better commercial developers than you do. And that is not only my own company, but also many other places where we work together with in-house developers. Yes, these folks put assertions in their code -- and they care for the case when they happen. That's because they are proud about their work and want to create good applications. They are not afraid of bad news, and closing bug tickets is not a metrics for their appraisal. (Client or user satisfaction is, actually.) Of course, there is a bad apple here and there; but that's not different to the authors of the thousands of OSS projects on SourceForge or elsewhere.
You seem to have a gripe with commercial software development -- you might have a bad experience in your own job. If you do, I have a recommendation for you: Look for a different company where developers are allowed to do their job. It pays in the end, both for the developer and the company.
Looking from the outside, this describes the relation to the Ubuntu project equally well. That there is a uproar about DT paying release managers but not about Ubuntu paying developers smells as if some other agendas are into the play as well.
And all that uproar about a $12000 contract, that's laughable. That's roughly two weeks full-time work at normal contracting rates; for senior consultants it would be even less.
"hey, I can cobble together some shit in five minutes and move on to the next thing I don't want to be doing".
And that also perfectly describes half of the stuff that ends up in any Linux distribution. Have you looked at the source of some Open Source projects lately? I cannot count how often I see error messages or assert failures with GNOME applications -- well, I start them on the command line and not in some window manager, so other folks don't seem to see them. KDE applications are not much better either; to wit the junk messages I just got from starting amarok:
QLayout "unnamed" added to QVBox "unnamed", which already has a layout QLayout: Adding KToolBar/mainToolBar (child of QVBox/unnamed) to layout for PlaylistWindow/PlaylistWindow
Great, this is the software in Debian where an unpaid programmer supposedly cared for it, according to you. (I don't want to devalue the work of the amarok developers -- the software is OK as it is. I'm refering to the holier-than-thou approach of the parent poster.)
Windows with its stock nVidia driver works as good or as bad as Linux with its stock nVidia (nv) driver.
The GP said that to get full functionality out of this graphics card, one has to have the proprietary closed nVidia device driver, both for Windows and for Linux. (Since it's the identical device driver, only the shim is different, that statement really holds for both.)
In any event, SCO encouraged IBM to develop a powerful legal team.
You must be very young.
IBM has been a legal powerhouse since many decades. Look up IBM vs. CDC, or IBM vs. Amdahl, and -- last, but not least -- US vs. IBM, the big anti-trust case that ran for a whole whopping 12 (in words: twelve!) years, from 1969 to 1982.
I knew that the US medical insurance system sucks, but I didn't know that it sucks so much. Good luck for your wife, that she delivers without any problems for her or the baby.
According to Novell, you don't buy any MS license when you buy SUSE. They say that there is no reason to because SUSE does not infringe on any MS patents, to their knowledge. They also promise to throw our any infringing code immediately, it it gets known, so there won't be cause for you licensing it from MS in the future.
According to Novell, what you get is indemnification against potential lawsuits from MS, just like you do when you buy Linux from HP or other sources. (HP also indemnifies their own customers and not others. RH doesn't indemnify, it has a limited legal defense fund.)
The main difference here is that it was publicized how Novell realized that indemnification, by a contract and payments to MS, and that way doesn't resonate well with many free software proponents.
NOTE: I'm not connected to Novell, but I informed myself by reading the available publicized material.
Hmmm... "the person who was instrumental"? That overstates jwz's (admittedly substantial) contributions, and completely ignores the contributions of many others.
I wasn't thinking about his code contribution, I was thinking about his political work inside Netscape after they were taken over by AOL. And, AFAIK, there he was instrumental in the struggle to create mozilla.org, i.e., to convince middle and upper management that it can be done to free that code. Later, he had the well-known run-ins with his project colleagues about different project goals, thus his mozilla.org code contributions weren't so many anyhow.
Actually, if this is a serious exchange and not some name-calling as the GGP did; I would even agree that it is arguable that jwz is a supporter of free software, he was always more in the Open Source camp. He consistently maintained that this is a way to produce better software; but if any OSS projects did not succeed in that, he wasn't the one not to use better proprietary software if needed and available.
And I disagree with you if it's relevant that mangu is a contributor to free software or not. If somebody starts name-calling for a well-renowned, but confrontational, OSS developer; to ask for that person's credentials is OK -- it is the initial question to see if it's worth my time arguing with him at all. After all, we're on/. here.:-)
You must not forget that mangu didn't criticize jwz about the content of his CDDB rant (which I think, as a kind of a blog entry, is quite valid as a technical critique, if expressed harshly). Instead he started to make ad-hominem attacks on his viewpoint concerning free software without obviously knowing his respective contributions at all. My approach for that kind of people is to ask them if they know what they're talking about, to see if I'll spend my `copiuos spare time' to answer them. If not, I'm better off working on CTAN, or xindy, or XEmacs or whatever else.
PS: I didn't want to write my question to mangu in bold; it was not so relevant. This should have been a <p> tag, and without using preview I didn't catch that typo... That's why there is no closing </b>-tag in my post. But now I will ``Use the Preview Button!'', as recommended...
jwz is well known as somebody who is harsh in his assessments, and he is also well known to hate bad software and especially bad software designs. He's very outspoken on the deficiencies of Unix, too, since he worked with better environments in the past. So you have your point in naming him a flamebaiter.
But to tag the person who was instrumental in bringing us mozilla.org, XEmacs, and a load of other free software as somebody who "hates free software" is a statement that speaks of ignorance. You obviously don't know the background of him.
But then, the involvement of jwz in free software is well known and widely documented; mangu isn't. I searched on Google for you and found nothing. What are your free software contributions?
Häh? The GEZ fee is not a tax, and has nothing to do with our State's overspending. It actually ain't a problem for the majority of private households (because 90+% of them pay the fee already), and also not for medium to large companies (because it is site-based and not device-based).
It is a nuisance fee for small business which didn't have to pay the fee before, but have to do now. The fee could be levied because public outcry will be low (private households are not concerned, see above) and the deciders have catered for those who are in power (large companies, see above).
Disclaimer: I own a medium-sized company in Germany. While I will have to pay an additional fee, for us it's white noise in all the other fees. (The U1 extension last year, or bringing forward the payment date of social insurance by 14 days has hurt us much more, and there was no public outcry about this at all. (You don't know what U1 is? Then you don't have any knowledge about fees and other associated costs of running a business in Germany. (It's a fee that is used to pay part of the wages of workers when they are ill.))) But I know many small company owners who have problems to meet their end, and they will be hurt most.
Those specimens most fit to live in a given environment will prevale over specimens that are less fit for that environment.
That's better said as: "Those specimens unfit to live in a given environment will die out." (Competition of different species about scarce ressources are a given part of the environment.)
This formulation explains better why we don't have one species per environmental niche. I.e., what does "prevale" means in your sentence, does it mean that the subfit species die out? Obviously not, if you look around in nature. It also explains better that aboundance of ressources, be they natural or artificial, lessen the selection pressure -- which can be very well seen at homo sapiens sapiens today.
[On arXiv,] there are dozens of papers there that claim to have solved the Goldbach conjecture, or the Riemann hypothesis, or proven that the real numbers are countable, etc.
The difference is that the authors of these papers have no track record of getting articles accepted in the best math journals, also have no track record of previous ground breaking new work in math, and have not caused a stir in the community that is as positive as it is this time. Penny Smith has.
Actually no, it can still be perfectly OK if the terminal server is only ever plugged into a physically separate private network whose only connection to the outside world is a (heavily defended) ssh-enabled host.
There is no reason I can think of why one should not use ssh within this physically separated private network as well. Otherwise your ssh-enabled host is a single point of failure, and defense in depth is not realized.
To have separated admin networks is a standard procedure. But it's also standard to secure them as well. Otherwise a break-in in one system of the admin network enables sniffing and easy compromise of further systems.
Please note that my main target is traffic confidentially, i.e., encryption. Authentication is not one of my arguments -- I don't necessarily advocate use of key-based authentication in all cases. I have seen too many private ssh keys without passphrases, or unattended systems with running ssh-agents to buy the mantra that key-based ssh authentication is always better.
Slashdot Mirror
Two or three years ago, I had RAID controllers in hosted (read: cheaply rented) Dell systems where the available management software was horrible and where I switched to software RAID for just that reason. (Sorry, don't remember the exact brand any more, it was not aacraid. Therefore I recommend to check that issue.) The lesser performance was not relevant in that case, but the ability to integrate it into our Nagios monitoring was essential. aacraid is OK nowadays, but not all use that.
Yes, these were horrible incidents. No, it is not a generaly accepted public policy in Germany to let violence to islamic women happen -- quite to the contrary. If you always take occasions of moronic judge decisions to portrait the public majority opinion of a country, you do your case a disfavor.
But then, such tabloid stories seem to be more interesting than discussions about existing conflicts that take place currently in many European and Mediterranean countries, e.g., the whole veils-in-public-places discussion in France, Germany, Turkey, and other countries.
The more interesting part is the fight over the allowance of traditional islamic women clothing (in particular, the veil) that takes place in Germany -- and in many other countries as well, e.g., in Turkey. As an example, there is lots of public support to forbid the islamic veil in schools -- but the permission to wear christian veils (by Christian nuns) or those jewish caps (sorry, don't know their name quite now, and dict.leo.org doesn't help me either here :-) are not changed at the same time. To tie it back to the article, the French are at least more consequent with their secularism than the Germans are.
For the record, I have nothing against wearing religious symbols in the public, be it in school or somewhere else. At the same time, as a society, we need to support and defend those who don't want to wear such symbols and are forced by their family or neighbourhood.
That said, I want to emphasize two things: I don't condemn the CA winemakers. (I have never been to NZ, so I refrain from comments about them.) They have a market that they cater for; and I'm fine with that. Well, one needs quite some tries before one finds the really good ones -- but that's the same in every wine region of the world. And while CA vintneries have been the first where I encountered chip wines, currently German winemakers demand that they are allowed to use this technology, too. Don't know about the French folks, though. Local grumbling won't stop that, I'm afraid. In fact, the sad story is -- as told above -- that trust and many tastings is the only way to appreciate a winemaker: There are no regulations that enforce that winemakers must tell interested parties how (s)he made her or his wine.
But then, making it more easy would make the life of wine afficionados boring, wouldn't it?
But then, you get crap everywhere. Here in Germany, there is a Riesling called "Niersteiner Gutes Domtal" which goes mostly in export; to UK and the US. Together with "Liebfrauenmilch" we call those rieslings "the German revenge for the lost 2nd world war" because they are so unbelievable bad. And one must take note that in Nierstein itself some of our best rieslings are produced. (You can take that with a grain of salt, from my home it's just a 30 minutes drive to them, so the Rheinhessen and Pfalz wines are my local wines. :-)
What a complete and utter load of garbage. (And yes, I read your response to osu-neko that showed that you didn't understand a thing at all.) So, let's try it again: Many domains exist for other purposes than giving the names of Web sites. For example, I have some domains that are used only for email and for nothing else. This means that there will be an email address mbox@domain.tld, but no www.domain.tld. No IP address is associated, nothing. Technically, in the DNS, these domains have no A records associated at all, just an MX record and 2 or 3 NS records (and the SOA). No Web sites, and that's OK and no cybersquatting either. Go back to your dorm, and learn something about DNS, and something about domain names and where they are used. Note, for more than IP address mapping. Then come back.
If I attach an arbitrary USB stick to my Linux system, no virus infection happens. It's not as if the attack vector of external storage is existant on any system.
My father died from liver cancer last year, and a very good friend of mine is dying from lung cancer right now. (He has metastases [sp?] and last week new cancer cells were detected in his brain water.) Seeing those loved persons disappear slowly, time over time, is one of the hardest things to watch. When my grandma died by a stroke, I thought it was hard. I didn't know how hard it is to watch a loved one dying over months and years.
You're writing was perfectly understandable, even for me as a non-native English speaker. I suspect that the GP obviously chose to misunderstand you intently, as it was inconvenient for his own opinion.
For the information of non-German readers: It's exactly the other way round. One needs to declare explicitly that one is a member of one of these churches. Only then the membership fee is collected by the state. The IRS takes a significant chunk of that money as a processing fee before it passes it on to the church organization. Actually, that's the reason why only large churches use this state contract possibility -- smaller churches cannot afford the IRS fees.
I'm arguing against the statement that unpaid volunteer work at Debian produces inherently better software than paid work, be it for Open Source projects or for proprietary products. In my experience, the issue of payment and code quality are not statistically related. Besides, much work for major OSS projects is paid nowadays -- after all, I also pay my own staff to work on Open Source software.
Why I don't fix it? Well, do you have a time machine for me, to give me the additional 24 hours per day that I would like to have? (And I'd take another 24 hours for the night... ;-) I am engaged in some projects that interest me most, and that fills up my spare time. Sometimes I help fixing other projects; but this is not always taken well.
For example, just two weeks ago, I posted bug reports and fixes to OpenCA, an often-cited open source PKI project. No reaction at all, not even an ack that they received it. I have more than a dozen in-house fixes for that project; I asked how to submit them. Still no reaction. Do you really think that I spent the effort to clean them up and submit them after that reception? If you would do so, you're holier than I am; I'll spend my time where it's taken as a positive contribution.
That's the other side of Open Source development, and that's not different to some proprietary software companies that I encountered. The OP's bragging about Open Source volunteer work quality doesn't describe the reality, which is gray and not black-and-white.
Second, the assertion is very fine if it is in. But that such obvious errors are not fixed before the release is rushed out is simply sloppy work that would not happen at our Open Source projects.
Third, as the CEO of a consulting company, I seem to work with better commercial developers than you do. And that is not only my own company, but also many other places where we work together with in-house developers. Yes, these folks put assertions in their code -- and they care for the case when they happen. That's because they are proud about their work and want to create good applications. They are not afraid of bad news, and closing bug tickets is not a metrics for their appraisal. (Client or user satisfaction is, actually.) Of course, there is a bad apple here and there; but that's not different to the authors of the thousands of OSS projects on SourceForge or elsewhere.
You seem to have a gripe with commercial software development -- you might have a bad experience in your own job. If you do, I have a recommendation for you: Look for a different company where developers are allowed to do their job. It pays in the end, both for the developer and the company.
And all that uproar about a $12000 contract, that's laughable. That's roughly two weeks full-time work at normal contracting rates; for senior consultants it would be even less.
So, what was your point?
The GP said that to get full functionality out of this graphics card, one has to have the proprietary closed nVidia device driver, both for Windows and for Linux. (Since it's the identical device driver, only the shim is different, that statement really holds for both.)
Joachim
IBM has been a legal powerhouse since many decades. Look up IBM vs. CDC, or IBM vs. Amdahl, and -- last, but not least -- US vs. IBM, the big anti-trust case that ran for a whole whopping 12 (in words: twelve!) years, from 1969 to 1982.
I knew that the US medical insurance system sucks, but I didn't know that it sucks so much. Good luck for your wife, that she delivers without any problems for her or the baby.
According to Novell, what you get is indemnification against potential lawsuits from MS, just like you do when you buy Linux from HP or other sources. (HP also indemnifies their own customers and not others. RH doesn't indemnify, it has a limited legal defense fund.)
The main difference here is that it was publicized how Novell realized that indemnification, by a contract and payments to MS, and that way doesn't resonate well with many free software proponents.
NOTE: I'm not connected to Novell, but I informed myself by reading the available publicized material.
Actually, if this is a serious exchange and not some name-calling as the GGP did; I would even agree that it is arguable that jwz is a supporter of free software, he was always more in the Open Source camp. He consistently maintained that this is a way to produce better software; but if any OSS projects did not succeed in that, he wasn't the one not to use better proprietary software if needed and available.
And I disagree with you if it's relevant that mangu is a contributor to free software or not. If somebody starts name-calling for a well-renowned, but confrontational, OSS developer; to ask for that person's credentials is OK -- it is the initial question to see if it's worth my time arguing with him at all. After all, we're on /. here. :-)
You must not forget that mangu didn't criticize jwz about the content of his CDDB rant (which I think, as a kind of a blog entry, is quite valid as a technical critique, if expressed harshly). Instead he started to make ad-hominem attacks on his viewpoint concerning free software without obviously knowing his respective contributions at all. My approach for that kind of people is to ask them if they know what they're talking about, to see if I'll spend my `copiuos spare time' to answer them. If not, I'm better off working on CTAN, or xindy, or XEmacs or whatever else.
PS: I didn't want to write my question to mangu in bold; it was not so relevant. This should have been a <p> tag, and without using preview I didn't catch that typo... That's why there is no closing </b>-tag in my post. But now I will ``Use the Preview Button!'', as recommended...
But to tag the person who was instrumental in bringing us mozilla.org, XEmacs, and a load of other free software as somebody who "hates free software" is a statement that speaks of ignorance. You obviously don't know the background of him. But then, the involvement of jwz in free software is well known and widely documented; mangu isn't. I searched on Google for you and found nothing. What are your free software contributions?
It is a nuisance fee for small business which didn't have to pay the fee before, but have to do now. The fee could be levied because public outcry will be low (private households are not concerned, see above) and the deciders have catered for those who are in power (large companies, see above).
Disclaimer: I own a medium-sized company in Germany. While I will have to pay an additional fee, for us it's white noise in all the other fees. (The U1 extension last year, or bringing forward the payment date of social insurance by 14 days has hurt us much more, and there was no public outcry about this at all. (You don't know what U1 is? Then you don't have any knowledge about fees and other associated costs of running a business in Germany. (It's a fee that is used to pay part of the wages of workers when they are ill.))) But I know many small company owners who have problems to meet their end, and they will be hurt most.
This formulation explains better why we don't have one species per environmental niche. I.e., what does "prevale" means in your sentence, does it mean that the subfit species die out? Obviously not, if you look around in nature. It also explains better that aboundance of ressources, be they natural or artificial, lessen the selection pressure -- which can be very well seen at homo sapiens sapiens today.
To have separated admin networks is a standard procedure. But it's also standard to secure them as well. Otherwise a break-in in one system of the admin network enables sniffing and easy compromise of further systems.
Please note that my main target is traffic confidentially, i.e., encryption. Authentication is not one of my arguments -- I don't necessarily advocate use of key-based authentication in all cases. I have seen too many private ssh keys without passphrases, or unattended systems with running ssh-agents to buy the mantra that key-based ssh authentication is always better.