Talk about the myopia of zealots (and I am one for Linux as well). Socrates said "Know thyself." I like Linux much better than that M$ OS, but I am not naieve enough to believe the fact that it is better is why there are FEW (not NO) viruses for Linux. It has to do with market share on the client and accessbility by the virus writers. When Linux get's into the double-digit share on the client look out. In the meantime, we can harden Linux clients--Eazel you listening?--so that Linux never sees the proliferation and destruction that Windows saw last year. Red Hat no more flawed/exposed releases like the RH&, 'kay?
You just lost your house key in your front yard on your way out to go to work befoe you locked the front door. Which would you do: 1) get a bull horn and announce it to the neighborhood and leave for work or 2) keep it quiet, lock the front dor from the inside and leave out of the back for work quietly and llok for it when you get home. Nuf said people. Stop the black-helicopter conspiracy theories and the if-it-ain't-open-source-its-crap knee jerks for a second and think think think. These companies produce virus alerts and security alerts for the public and nothing they said indicates they won't continue that effort. Their alliance is for two purpose: 1) they are just going to communicate more quickly among themselves next time. The was no formal network response to LoveBug and is cost many people dearly. I know my former firm's mail servers were shut down for two days. And 2) they are going to keep little-known vulnerbilities quiet while they fix them--a good thing (see analogy at start of message). Relax--SlashDot community members must drink too much coffee. Chill out.
Let's see...Oregon, Washington, Canada, much of Europe have all the power they need AND cleaner air. So I guess it isn't the enironmental laws after all, my myopic rage-blinded friend. Maybe it was the power companies greed at selling off their generating assets under de-reg that got the consumer into this mess then huh? The only solvent utilities in California right now as the public ones! And they are comtemplating RATE CUTS! Geez, maybe your analysis and conclusion that the private sector can solve everything is a little flawed, ya think? Your Republican friends "feeding at the trough" (as David Stockman once put it so well) have once again screwed the working people.
I understand EULA provisions, many of which are objectionable and often skirt the laws of property rights. However in the EULA case, it is simple: you don't like the protection or terms required of you, you don't purchase, install or use the product and it costs you nothing in effect. The acceptability of a property protection scheme and its overhead is subject to market acceptance. A good example of the effect of the lack of acceptance was the decline of many early game copy protection schemes--the market rejected them. In this case the protection is there whether you want it or not--you pay for protection that benefits the vendor and not you and, further, the scheme not only costs you but inconveniences you as well and will undoubtedly cause crashes, block legal use , etc. as all such schemes invariably do. Yet if the scheme becomes ubiquitous, market acceptance forces will be circumvented. I believe this is autocratic and improper. Is there a legal strategy available to prevent a scheme being foreced uppon you BEFORE you buy the software or other content--i.e. before you have a chance to accept/reject individual licenses?
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about the myopia of zealots (and I am one for Linux as well). Socrates said "Know thyself." I like Linux much better than that M$ OS, but I am not naieve enough to believe the fact that it is better is why there are FEW (not NO) viruses for Linux. It has to do with market share on the client and accessbility by the virus writers. When Linux get's into the double-digit share on the client look out. In the meantime, we can harden Linux clients--Eazel you listening?--so that Linux never sees the proliferation and destruction that Windows saw last year. Red Hat no more flawed/exposed releases like the RH&, 'kay?
You just lost your house key in your front yard on your way out to go to work befoe you locked the front door. Which would you do: 1) get a bull horn and announce it to the neighborhood and leave for work or 2) keep it quiet, lock the front dor from the inside and leave out of the back for work quietly and llok for it when you get home. Nuf said people. Stop the black-helicopter conspiracy theories and the if-it-ain't-open-source-its-crap knee jerks for a second and think think think. These companies produce virus alerts and security alerts for the public and nothing they said indicates they won't continue that effort. Their alliance is for two purpose: 1) they are just going to communicate more quickly among themselves next time. The was no formal network response to LoveBug and is cost many people dearly. I know my former firm's mail servers were shut down for two days. And 2) they are going to keep little-known vulnerbilities quiet while they fix them--a good thing (see analogy at start of message). Relax--SlashDot community members must drink too much coffee. Chill out.
Let's see...Oregon, Washington, Canada, much of Europe have all the power they need AND cleaner air. So I guess it isn't the enironmental laws after all, my myopic rage-blinded friend. Maybe it was the power companies greed at selling off their generating assets under de-reg that got the consumer into this mess then huh? The only solvent utilities in California right now as the public ones! And they are comtemplating RATE CUTS! Geez, maybe your analysis and conclusion that the private sector can solve everything is a little flawed, ya think? Your Republican friends "feeding at the trough" (as David Stockman once put it so well) have once again screwed the working people.
I understand EULA provisions, many of which are objectionable and often skirt the laws of property rights. However in the EULA case, it is simple: you don't like the protection or terms required of you, you don't purchase, install or use the product and it costs you nothing in effect. The acceptability of a property protection scheme and its overhead is subject to market acceptance. A good example of the effect of the lack of acceptance was the decline of many early game copy protection schemes--the market rejected them. In this case the protection is there whether you want it or not--you pay for protection that benefits the vendor and not you and, further, the scheme not only costs you but inconveniences you as well and will undoubtedly cause crashes, block legal use , etc. as all such schemes invariably do. Yet if the scheme becomes ubiquitous, market acceptance forces will be circumvented. I believe this is autocratic and improper. Is there a legal strategy available to prevent a scheme being foreced uppon you BEFORE you buy the software or other content--i.e. before you have a chance to accept/reject individual licenses?