First you have to get OpenBSD, since Theo and Slashdot says it is the most secure.
Then I store the private information in a text file that is linked from the front page of my website. I publish personal information under the GPL so that nobody can modify it.
Information wants to be free. There is no reason to hide information!
If I found out that someone who was not a sysadmin or security analyst was running a password cracker on my systems, I'd be very pleased.
Lets face it, it's a pain in the ass to setup passwords crackers, and if a "White Hat" Hacker decides to break into my mailserver, he's really doing me a service.
As an example of similar activity, just the other day I found a man trying to unlock my mailbox with a screwdriver by prying the door off. I was actually comforted by the gesture, since I can now send a bug report to the post office and request that they install a stronger door.
Does my 95-year old grandfather who was a machinist 40 years ago understand the subtleties of health insurance? No. But he can and does inform himself about what is and isn't in his best interest. He votes accordingly every year.
I don't think you are one, but many techies are smug punks who don't listen to what others have to say. They assume everyone else is too, hence the jaded and apolitical attitudes.
The GPL is not different than any other license of intellectual property. It is unique because it grants you the ability to modify & redistribute.
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot modify or distribute. This is just like a conventional EULA, except it only restricts your right to modify & redistribute.
The law does not make a distinction between a "User" and an "End User" (unless you have multiple licenses which define distinct classes of users).
Your argument is that the average user of a GPL'd product will not modify the product. This makes sense, since few users actually modify software themselves.
Nevertheless, if a user does not agree to the GPL, they do not have the RIGHT to redistribute or modify the product. Whether or not they intend to do so is not relevant.
You do not own it. Linus Torvalds & Others own their code.
You own the trademark to "Burkix". You are essentially sub-licensing your (Free) license to use and redistribute the software to whomever buys Burkix for $399.
You are correct in saying that your linux 'license' is similar to owning a physical object. Similar, but not the same.
You do not have complete control of the code however, since you need to adhere to the provisions of the GPL in order to redistribute your modifications.
There are three ways to "own" intellectual property:
1> Buy it from the copyright owner.
2> Utilize public domain products (which belong to everyone)
I'm impressed with your memorization skills, if not your understanding of what it means. Unfortunately, that statement is not relevant to the overall document, since the statement negates itself.
You do not have to accept the license, but redistribution or modification of the software is your implicit approval and affirmation of the GPL.
How can you honestly claim that restricting your ability to modify and redistribute GPL'd software is not USE of the software??
Modification & free distribution of information is one of the core tenets of GNU and is what most all advocates of the GPL consider to be fair use.
Software FREEDOM is about modification & redistribution, not free software. This is why Linux is 'Free' software, while Solaris 8 (which can be downloaded in binary form for free) is not.
"Linux" the copyright is owned by Linus and others.
The GPL is a EULA which assigns you specific rights regarding distribution & modification. It is no different legally than a Microsoft, Oracle or IBM license. It's contents are obviously different.
A copy of the GNU General Public License is available here. Please read it.
If you go to Technet or MSDN, the answer is just about always in the FM.
I've seen two issues that weren't covered somewhere, and they were obscure active directory bugs that we discovered because of the somewhat unique design of our network.
The Admins @ the University of Kansas are probaly a pack of morons.
Where I work we run one of the larger Exchange systems in the country, about 100,000 named and 65,000 active users. There are plenty of problems to go around, but uptime isn't one of them.
The current uptime is about a month, because a pipe burst in the server room, forcing a shutdown. It was up about two months before that.
You've obviously have never had any experience with amphetamines.
The army routinely hands them to soldiers and pilots. If used in moderation, amphetamine is like coffee, but better.
Taking a normal does of amphetamine does not turn you into a crazed maniac. Abuse is a different matter. Unfortunately, amphetamine is easy to abuse, hence it's status as a controlled substance.
Slashdot Mirror
First you have to get OpenBSD, since Theo and Slashdot says it is the most secure.
Then I store the private information in a text file that is linked from the front page of my website. I publish personal information under the GPL so that nobody can modify it.
Information wants to be free. There is no reason to hide information!
That's brilliant!
All you have to do now is purchase a couple of dozen servers to do all this encryption.
about a dozen good-sized apps.
we are porting alot of legacy stuff over.
Microsoft spends millions of dollars on dozens of programmers to create their .NET runtime and still produces buggy heaps of shit.
How bad could one man's code be?
How maintainable?
You are a real loser.
Reading of troll stories on Slashdot is a violation of my principles.
Please send me your email address so that I can bill you $15,000 under the New York Unsolicited Email and Self-Important Fucktard Enforcement act.
Copying music/movies/software is "fair use"
Limiting anything that affects Slashdot dorks (ie. bandwidth) is evil in all situations.
Disagreement == troll.
Randal is totally innocent.
If I found out that someone who was not a sysadmin or security analyst was running a password cracker on my systems, I'd be very pleased.
Lets face it, it's a pain in the ass to setup passwords crackers, and if a "White Hat" Hacker decides to break into my mailserver, he's really doing me a service.
As an example of similar activity, just the other day I found a man trying to unlock my mailbox with a screwdriver by prying the door off. I was actually comforted by the gesture, since I can now send a bug report to the post office and request that they install a stronger door.
If people spoke out, they would convert others.
Does my 95-year old grandfather who was a machinist 40 years ago understand the subtleties of health insurance? No. But he can and does inform himself about what is and isn't in his best interest. He votes accordingly every year.
I don't think you are one, but many techies are smug punks who don't listen to what others have to say. They assume everyone else is too, hence the jaded and apolitical attitudes.
Despite your disdain for the political system, the United States is a democratic republic.
When Senators hear alot of complaints about an issue, they immediately see that their jobs are in jeopardy and act accordingly.
Ever wonder why the elderly get so many benefits (like Medicare, SS, etc)???
Because organizations like the AARP are loud and vocal in the pursuit of their interests.
Nobody wanted them in 1950 when they first came out.
Nobody wants them now.
The GPL is not different than any other license of intellectual property. It is unique because it grants you the ability to modify & redistribute.
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot modify or distribute. This is just like a conventional EULA, except it only restricts your right to modify & redistribute.
The law does not make a distinction between a "User" and an "End User" (unless you have multiple licenses which define distinct classes of users).
Your argument is that the average user of a GPL'd product will not modify the product. This makes sense, since few users actually modify software themselves.
Nevertheless, if a user does not agree to the GPL, they do not have the RIGHT to redistribute or modify the product. Whether or not they intend to do so is not relevant.
You do not own it. Linus Torvalds & Others own their code.
You own the trademark to "Burkix". You are essentially sub-licensing your (Free) license to use and redistribute the software to whomever buys Burkix for $399.
You are correct in saying that your linux 'license' is similar to owning a physical object. Similar, but not the same.
You do not have complete control of the code however, since you need to adhere to the provisions of the GPL in order to redistribute your modifications.
There are three ways to "own" intellectual property:
1> Buy it from the copyright owner.
2> Utilize public domain products (which belong to everyone)
3> Create something.
I'm impressed with your memorization skills, if not your understanding of what it means. Unfortunately, that statement is not relevant to the overall document, since the statement negates itself.
You do not have to accept the license, but redistribution or modification of the software is your implicit approval and affirmation of the GPL.
How can you honestly claim that restricting your ability to modify and redistribute GPL'd software is not USE of the software??
Modification & free distribution of information is one of the core tenets of GNU and is what most all advocates of the GPL consider to be fair use.
Software FREEDOM is about modification & redistribution, not free software. This is why Linux is 'Free' software, while Solaris 8 (which can be downloaded in binary form for free) is not.
"Linux" the trademark is owned by Linus
"Linux" the copyright is owned by Linus and others.
The GPL is a EULA which assigns you specific rights regarding distribution & modification. It is no different legally than a Microsoft, Oracle or IBM license. It's contents are obviously different.
A copy of the GNU General Public License is available here. Please read it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
You don't own Linux either. It is licensed to you under the GNU General Public License.
Linux is owned by Linux Tordvals and others.
You are really 3733t.
Does the fact that you use Lynx make you feel special or somehow better than everyone else??
I got some news for you: Nobody ever used Lynx. When text-based WWW browsers were the rage, the web was a bad Gopher knockoff.
I'm glad you don't work for me.
Running commands that you found on a webpage you couldn't read on a live database.... great....
If you go to Technet or MSDN, the answer is just about always in the FM.
I've seen two issues that weren't covered somewhere, and they were obscure active directory bugs that we discovered because of the somewhat unique design of our network.
Ok,
You don't speak spanish.
You don't know anything about Linux.
You've evidently never heard of things like "telephones" and "modems"
Why are you setting up a network in Chile?
The Admins @ the University of Kansas are probaly a pack of morons.
Where I work we run one of the larger Exchange systems in the country, about 100,000 named and 65,000 active users. There are plenty of problems to go around, but uptime isn't one of them.
The current uptime is about a month, because a pipe burst in the server room, forcing a shutdown. It was up about two months before that.
The EULA can say whatever it wants, but the law supercedes it.
I can write in a EULA that you must sacrifice sheep in order to keep running my software; that doesn't mean that any court would hold you to that.
My organization has sued Microsoft & IBM successfully several times in the last 5 years over software issues. It happens all the time.
This is Slashdot, son.
"Best tool for the job" == Linux, not matter what.
Instead of buying accounting software, you should code your own in Ruby and GPL it. Put it up on sourceforge and make the world a better place.
Shared calenders, meeting scheduling, notes, public folders, ldap integration.
I disagree with your assertion.
How many people do you see who marry up or down?
Not too many. People tend to marry people in the same economic or social range. Garbagemen don't marry doctors; Doctors don't marry hairdressers.
You've obviously have never had any experience with amphetamines.
The army routinely hands them to soldiers and pilots. If used in moderation, amphetamine is like coffee, but better.
Taking a normal does of amphetamine does not turn you into a crazed maniac. Abuse is a different matter. Unfortunately, amphetamine is easy to abuse, hence it's status as a controlled substance.