And thus the trap is sprung! Hans and Anna, who can convert exchange rates in their heads, know that 10 Fumarks equals 23 Barchmas smugly pull light blue pieces of paper from their wallet with which to tip the porter. Unfortunately in Fredonia a light blue is the color for a 100 Fumark note...
I believe one of the orginal premises of this whole article was that colored currency will make it easier for foreign visitors to use US currency. But that will not be the case unless the entire world standardized on particular colors for particular currency units. And that ain't going to happen.
p.s. The reason that Hans and Anna can convert currency in their heads is probably because they've travelled to other countries more often than John and Martha. The nation density in Europe is higher in the US, which makes it much easier and cheaper for Europeans to visit other nations. John and Martha have to schedule vacation time and make plans to visit Mexico or Canada, but Hans and Martha can probably go visit another country spontaneously over the weekend, and sometimes even just for an evening.
but poor sighted (not blind) people from anywhere in the world can have problems telling the difference between 10 & 20 dollar bills.
Short sighted people will have no problem. They're *short* sighted. Just hold the note closer to your nose. Color isn't going to help color blind people at all. And color blindness is very common.
Frankly, I don't see where the problem is. Europeans and Asians aren't confused by the monochrome quality of US currency, they are confused by a different values of the currency! A "10" in the US is different than a "10" in Mexico which is different than a "10" in Germany which is different than a "10" in Thailand...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the US used the same color for 10 Dollar bills that England used for 10 Pound notes? I could retire in a week!
This story is fake! It has to be fake. It must be fake.
As every Slashdot reader outside of the United States will tell you, the United States is the only nation in the world that restricts freedom of speech. Prominent Linux kernel hackers are boycotting the US but not Holland. Microsoft, RIAA and MPAA are in the US, not in Holland. So this story can't be real because it's set in Holland.
The English colonies in North America decided they wanted independence. But England didn't want them to be independent. When the colonists declared their independence, England waged war. By war, I mean bullets, bloodshed, gangrene, evisceration, hangings, rapes, burning of homes and crops, enslavement of children, etc.
Now contrast this with the average Microsoft user and Microsoft. Said user wants to be independent of Microsoft products. Microsoft doesn't want them to be. User erases Microsoft software and installs FreeBSD (or Linux for you folks in Rio Linda). Microsoft responds by... nothing. They don't wage war. They don't fire bullets. They don't kill, rape, pillage or burn.
If you can't understand the difference between Microsoft under King Bill and England under King George, you need to get out into the sun a bit more often.
No, it is Lycoris who is duplicating the look and feel of WinXP. If you look at those screen shots, you'll see that they ARE NOT of the standard KDE control center. That isn't the standard KDE color scheme. Those aren't the standard KDE icons. In fact, that isn't even a control center at all! It's Konqueror displaying a fscking web page!
I'm running KDE right now, and I'll be damned! It looks just like...like...KDE!
Remember that is was during the Clinton administration that Microsoft became a monopoly. Clinton didn't decide to pursue the anti-trust case until after Microsft was so firmly entrenched that the situation was impossible to correct without massive government intervention.
Wasn't the Sporkin wrist-slapping made during the early Clinton years? Or do we just conveniently forget history when it doesn't serve our perconceptions?
But with software, its controlled by copyright and licensing.
A license is a contract. Or at least most licenses are. Consider the GPL as a prime example. The only way I get the right to distribute the a GPLed work is by agreeing to the contract. And that contract regulates how I may or may not distribute the GPLed work.
And what if he disobeys you? Will you fine him? Put him in jail?
One could ask the same thing of the GPL. What if I distribute your work without disclosing the source? Will you fine me? Will you put me in jail?
My don't democrats have thin skins! The previous poster did not bash on Clinton, but merely mentioned an weakly analogous situation for the purposes of comparison. And you get your panties in a twist.
Fact: Clinton used to be president. Fact: Sensitive technology got leaked to China during his watch. Conclusion: None.
Fact: Bush is now president. Fact: Microsoft appears to getting an easy ride o his watch. Conclusion: None.
Looking at the Common Cause stats, it appears that Microsoft is spending 40/60 on the democrats/republicans. I don't recall any dems refusing that money. Bill may have bought George, but George ain't the only one he bought.
I'm all set to use PGP/GPG. It's integrated into my mail client. I have registered my public key. That's the easy part.
The hard part is my mom, my boss, my friends, the guys on the mailing list... Until they all get PGP/GPG and make a public key, encryption doesn't do me a bit of good. I don't care how much PGP integration the current crop of mail clients have, generating valid and robust keys and then maintaining them through software upgrades, harddrive crashes and ISP changes, is something the average Joe Sixpack (as well as my mom) is not going to be able to handle.
Think about it. The day every computer user knows how to properly maintain a set of PGP keys is the day people stop opening binary email attachments, stop using "password" and "drowssap" as passwords, and start checking the security of webpages before the start shopping online.
With copyright, you don't "wish" it to be so, you demand it to be so.
In my example I was using contract law. In a way, contract law is the foundation of civilization and a key component of property. I sure hope you're not arguing that contracts are immoral beasts.
To you, keeping information secret is the basis of your new property right.
Keeping control of the information is the basis, not keeping it secret. The reason I want to control it is so that I can profit from it. If I can profit from it morally through the use of moral contracts and moral voluntary economic transactions, then why should anyone have a problem with it?
Myth: They're doing this because Lou Gerstner read the GNU Manifesto and decided he doesn't actually like capitalism.
It's hyperbole of course. Duh!
The myth as stated is "IBM gets it". The myth translated into SlashdotSpeak is "IBM understands the philosophy of Richard Stallman and have decided to jump on board the freedom train." This is nonsense. IBM exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to make money for their shareholders.
This is known as consideration. I'm not the biggest GPL fan, but it is a legitimate license because there is consideration. In fact, there is more consideration in the GPL then with the 99% of the commercial EULAs out there.
The author gives you permission to modify and redistribute the software. You give the author the promise that your modifications and redistributions will have identical permissions. Consideration for both sides. No problem.
Constrast that to the typical EULA. You receive the right to use the software upon purchasing a copy of it. The author is giving you nothing in exchange for your acceptance of the restrictions in the EULA. There is no consideration. It is not a valid contract.
When you create a work, you physically own the media on which it resides, and the only instance of that particular information. This is a very real and material property right. The only way someone can redistribute that information is by materially breaking into your home and materially reproducing the media upon which the sole copy of the information resides.
Now take it one step further by introducing the right of association and by extension, contracts. Your neighbor wishes to see that information but you don't wish it to be widely disseminated beyond your neighbor. So you create an informal contract affirmed by a handshake that he will not disseminate it further. In essense, and NDA.
Now one final step. Sell this work to the general public but require every purchaser (and third party distributor) to voluntarily enter into a similar agreement not to disseminate the work except according to your wishes. In essence, a EULA.
You basically just reinvented copyright law through the logical extension of property rights and contracts. Granted, there are some loopholes you could drive Mack truck through, but the concept is the same.
Copyright is not a basic property right. But it is similar to one, in that at one point you were the sole possessor of the material media upon which the sole copy resided.
You as the original author, by default, shall automatically deprive everyone else on the planet from any basic freedom they might otherwise have to use, copy, modify, or disseminate what you happened to create
This asserts the existance of unalienable rights to copy, modify and disseminate the information created by others. I just don't see a natural right to disseminate your private diary, even if you have given it to me. That's the premise that GNU is founded on, but I have not seen to date any justification for it.
The difference is that I can take a copy protected VHS tape with Macrovision and play it on any VCR. I can take any DVD protected with CSS and play it on any DVD player (1). But with a copy protected CD, I can only play it on certain players. It won't work on my computer CD player. Thus, VHS and DVD protection restricts my copying but not my usage, but CD protection restricts my copying AND my usage.
Another, perhaps minor, difference is that the vast majority VHS and DVD videos are rented, while the vast majority of CDs will be purchased. People don't put up with as much shit if it's their own property.
(1) DVD region restrictions are an exception. But if you notice, the "hypocritical folks are crying foul about it just as loudly as with CD protection.
I think mandatory licensing for developers is stupid. Last thing anyone needs is a new bureaucratic office dedicated to extracting fees from developers.
But warranties are a different matter. If you market your software as a commercial product, then it should have the same warranties as any other commercial product. This is common courtesy. It's also known as being ethical and moral.
If you claim that your software is suitable to be marketed by actually marketing it, then you need to back that up by NOT disclaiming merchantibility. If I buy a toaster and it doesn't work as a toaster, it has a warranty that says I can get it repaired or return it for a refund. Commercial software should be the same. If I spend $199 on a word processor and it fails to process words I want recourse. If a patch is available then I want to be able to get that patch without having to pay for it. If no patch is available, then I want my money back. Is this so hard to understand?
But before you all get your panties in a twist and start crying out that warranties will kill off Open Source, remember that this only applies to commercially sold software. No one expects merchantibility for freely downloaded software. Second, the warranty should reside with the seller, not the developer. So Redhat can sell your software and you are off the hook, because it is Redhat that is claiming the software is merchantable and not you.
(liability is a different matter. I believe that every competent business should have liability insurance. But I don't see any problem with disclaiming liability so long as the recipient knows of the disclaimer before using the software)
My current software has a warranty disclaimer. That's okay because I am not selling my software. If you wish to purchase my software, you will get a warranty with it. This warranty will cover replacement or repair of the software for one year.
Re:Gentoo's Portage system r00lz
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
emerge -s package
I just downloaded the current portage tree. I see that some ports do have descriptions, but that some do not. This is a big improvement over the last time I used it when I couldn't find any. Those empty description lines are a major pain in the ass. Go look up the description for Windowmaker. Quite useful isn't it?
Want more? Gentoo Documentation [gentoo.org]
Let me go look. I sure hope it's better than the last time (which was 1.0 or thereabouts)...
Okay, now that my eyes have stopped bleeding after those pages full of green, dark purple, light purple, red, yellow and blue highlighting, I see that there's a few more docs available. The desktop guide seems to be somewhat adequate. The portage manual is slightly easier on the eyes, and I see that it actually has a bit on "search".
Remember that Gentoo is still a "young" distribution...
First time I used Gentoo was about a year ago. It was so far from stable that LFS was easier to build. Last time I used it was version 1.0. From my perspective it seemed as if it was aimed at Gentoo developers rather than Gentoo users. It looks like 1.2 should be out soon. Maybe I'll try that.
p.s. Please note that I am not intending to rag on Gentoo. I think it had the promise at 1.0 then any other distro did at 1.0. My criticisms are aimed to improve it, not to knock it.
Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?
on
FreeBSD 4.6
·
· Score: 2
Of course it's not perfect. I've found "Linux" programs that won't run under any distro but Redhat...
Re:Gentoo's Portage system r00lz
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
From my own experience (undoubtedly biased by the fact that the Gentoo documentation is grossly incomplete) here is were ports beats portage:
1) Can't search portage. Under FreeBSD just do: "make search name=blarg". This will give you a wealth of information.
2) Poor documentation for portage. This may be the reason I never figured out how to do the previous. Under FreeBSD, do a "man ports" and you get all the information you need. (there's also the excellent Handbook and Porter's Guide)
3) No package descriptions! Aaaargh! If you want to know what a package does under Gentoo you download the sources and read the README in the sources. Very bad. Even a one line lazy-developer's description is better than nothing.
4) For difficult source code, it may be easier to create a Gentoo emerge file. But for simple straightforward source, the FreeBSD port Makefile is easiest.
3) Ability to install binaries packages as an option. Building from source is great, but sometimes you don't have the time.
Summary: I expect the Gentoo portage system to eventually address my concerns. In the meantime it was a very painful experience.
Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?
on
FreeBSD 4.6
·
· Score: 2
I'm using FreeBSD at home on my desktop, and at work on my workstation. I'm not using it as a server at all since I don't have a need for a server. I'm running Xfree86-4.2.0 with DRM, KDE-3.0.1, Mozilla, Xmms, Wine, etc. FreeBSD has an excellent Linux compatibility mode, so most Linux commercial software will run just fine.
Benefits: easy upgradability, customization and optimization via source code.
Drawbacks: you have to wait until the bleeding stops before the bleeding edge stuff is ported over.
Then Microsoft, the MPAA or RIAA, or Adobe must be involved. After all, every abuse of programming rights has to originate the Great Satan that is the United States...
You can turn off the syntax highlighting. But that misses the whole point. This new hire was panicking because he didn't have an IDE to use. He wanted something with tabbed windows, class browser (for C driver code nonetheless), debug window, and MSDN on the side...
Emacs gives him everything he needs but it's not in the visual style that he is used to. If he is going to get ahead in his career, he needs to learn how to program regardless of the tool set or media. He won't always have Visual Studio or a Visual Studio clone available. He might have to use a whiteboard in a code review. He might be stuck out at a customer site with only a ssh access to the code base.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, my English translation of Solaris (Berkley Medallion, Faber and Faber, Ltd translation, (c) 1970) uses the name "Rheya".
So this isn't just a Hollywood/MPAA conspiracy, but a multinational cabal of English speaking masterminds intent on suppressing the Polish language.
And thus the trap is sprung! Hans and Anna, who can convert exchange rates in their heads, know that 10 Fumarks equals 23 Barchmas smugly pull light blue pieces of paper from their wallet with which to tip the porter. Unfortunately in Fredonia a light blue is the color for a 100 Fumark note...
I believe one of the orginal premises of this whole article was that colored currency will make it easier for foreign visitors to use US currency. But that will not be the case unless the entire world standardized on particular colors for particular currency units. And that ain't going to happen.
p.s. The reason that Hans and Anna can convert currency in their heads is probably because they've travelled to other countries more often than John and Martha. The nation density in Europe is higher in the US, which makes it much easier and cheaper for Europeans to visit other nations. John and Martha have to schedule vacation time and make plans to visit Mexico or Canada, but Hans and Martha can probably go visit another country spontaneously over the weekend, and sometimes even just for an evening.
Remember, this is a CDROM. It's read only. That's mean you won't have a swap partition. Think about it.
but poor sighted (not blind) people from anywhere in the world can have problems telling the difference between 10 & 20 dollar bills.
Short sighted people will have no problem. They're *short* sighted. Just hold the note closer to your nose. Color isn't going to help color blind people at all. And color blindness is very common.
Frankly, I don't see where the problem is. Europeans and Asians aren't confused by the monochrome quality of US currency, they are confused by a different values of the currency! A "10" in the US is different than a "10" in Mexico which is different than a "10" in Germany which is different than a "10" in Thailand...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the US used the same color for 10 Dollar bills that England used for 10 Pound notes? I could retire in a week!
This story is fake! It has to be fake. It must be fake.
As every Slashdot reader outside of the United States will tell you, the United States is the only nation in the world that restricts freedom of speech. Prominent Linux kernel hackers are boycotting the US but not Holland. Microsoft, RIAA and MPAA are in the US, not in Holland. So this story can't be real because it's set in Holland.
The English colonies in North America decided they wanted independence. But England didn't want them to be independent. When the colonists declared their independence, England waged war. By war, I mean bullets, bloodshed, gangrene, evisceration, hangings, rapes, burning of homes and crops, enslavement of children, etc.
... nothing. They don't wage war. They don't fire bullets. They don't kill, rape, pillage or burn.
Now contrast this with the average Microsoft user and Microsoft. Said user wants to be independent of Microsoft products. Microsoft doesn't want them to be. User erases Microsoft software and installs FreeBSD (or Linux for you folks in Rio Linda). Microsoft responds by
If you can't understand the difference between Microsoft under King Bill and England under King George, you need to get out into the sun a bit more often.
No, it is Lycoris who is duplicating the look and feel of WinXP. If you look at those screen shots, you'll see that they ARE NOT of the standard KDE control center. That isn't the standard KDE color scheme. Those aren't the standard KDE icons. In fact, that isn't even a control center at all! It's Konqueror displaying a fscking web page!
I'm running KDE right now, and I'll be damned! It looks just like...like...KDE!
Remember that is was during the Clinton administration that Microsoft became a monopoly. Clinton didn't decide to pursue the anti-trust case until after Microsft was so firmly entrenched that the situation was impossible to correct without massive government intervention.
Wasn't the Sporkin wrist-slapping made during the early Clinton years? Or do we just conveniently forget history when it doesn't serve our perconceptions?
But with software, its controlled by copyright and licensing.
A license is a contract. Or at least most licenses are. Consider the GPL as a prime example. The only way I get the right to distribute the a GPLed work is by agreeing to the contract. And that contract regulates how I may or may not distribute the GPLed work.
And what if he disobeys you? Will you fine him? Put him in jail?
One could ask the same thing of the GPL. What if I distribute your work without disclosing the source? Will you fine me? Will you put me in jail?
My don't democrats have thin skins! The previous poster did not bash on Clinton, but merely mentioned an weakly analogous situation for the purposes of comparison. And you get your panties in a twist.
Fact: Clinton used to be president.
Fact: Sensitive technology got leaked to China during his watch.
Conclusion: None.
Fact: Bush is now president.
Fact: Microsoft appears to getting an easy ride o his watch.
Conclusion: None.
Looking at the Common Cause stats, it appears that Microsoft is spending 40/60 on the democrats/republicans. I don't recall any dems refusing that money. Bill may have bought George, but George ain't the only one he bought.
I'm all set to use PGP/GPG. It's integrated into my mail client. I have registered my public key. That's the easy part.
The hard part is my mom, my boss, my friends, the guys on the mailing list... Until they all get PGP/GPG and make a public key, encryption doesn't do me a bit of good. I don't care how much PGP integration the current crop of mail clients have, generating valid and robust keys and then maintaining them through software upgrades, harddrive crashes and ISP changes, is something the average Joe Sixpack (as well as my mom) is not going to be able to handle.
Think about it. The day every computer user knows how to properly maintain a set of PGP keys is the day people stop opening binary email attachments, stop using "password" and "drowssap" as passwords, and start checking the security of webpages before the start shopping online.
With copyright, you don't "wish" it to be so, you demand it to be so.
In my example I was using contract law. In a way, contract law is the foundation of civilization and a key component of property. I sure hope you're not arguing that contracts are immoral beasts.
To you, keeping information secret is the basis of your new property right.
Keeping control of the information is the basis, not keeping it secret. The reason I want to control it is so that I can profit from it. If I can profit from it morally through the use of moral contracts and moral voluntary economic transactions, then why should anyone have a problem with it?
Myth: They're doing this because Lou Gerstner read the GNU Manifesto and decided he doesn't actually like capitalism.
It's hyperbole of course. Duh!
The myth as stated is "IBM gets it". The myth translated into SlashdotSpeak is "IBM understands the philosophy of Richard Stallman and have decided to jump on board the freedom train." This is nonsense. IBM exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to make money for their shareholders.
Some types of contracts require an exchange ($1)
This is known as consideration. I'm not the biggest GPL fan, but it is a legitimate license because there is consideration. In fact, there is more consideration in the GPL then with the 99% of the commercial EULAs out there.
The author gives you permission to modify and redistribute the software. You give the author the promise that your modifications and redistributions will have identical permissions. Consideration for both sides. No problem.
Constrast that to the typical EULA. You receive the right to use the software upon purchasing a copy of it. The author is giving you nothing in exchange for your acceptance of the restrictions in the EULA. There is no consideration. It is not a valid contract.
How is copyright a basic property right?
When you create a work, you physically own the media on which it resides, and the only instance of that particular information. This is a very real and material property right. The only way someone can redistribute that information is by materially breaking into your home and materially reproducing the media upon which the sole copy of the information resides.
Now take it one step further by introducing the right of association and by extension, contracts. Your neighbor wishes to see that information but you don't wish it to be widely disseminated beyond your neighbor. So you create an informal contract affirmed by a handshake that he will not disseminate it further. In essense, and NDA.
Now one final step. Sell this work to the general public but require every purchaser (and third party distributor) to voluntarily enter into a similar agreement not to disseminate the work except according to your wishes. In essence, a EULA.
You basically just reinvented copyright law through the logical extension of property rights and contracts. Granted, there are some loopholes you could drive Mack truck through, but the concept is the same.
Copyright is not a basic property right. But it is similar to one, in that at one point you were the sole possessor of the material media upon which the sole copy resided.
You as the original author, by default, shall automatically deprive everyone else on the planet from any basic freedom they might otherwise have to use, copy, modify, or disseminate what you happened to create
This asserts the existance of unalienable rights to copy, modify and disseminate the information created by others. I just don't see a natural right to disseminate your private diary, even if you have given it to me. That's the premise that GNU is founded on, but I have not seen to date any justification for it.
The difference is that I can take a copy protected VHS tape with Macrovision and play it on any VCR. I can take any DVD protected with CSS and play it on any DVD player (1). But with a copy protected CD, I can only play it on certain players. It won't work on my computer CD player. Thus, VHS and DVD protection restricts my copying but not my usage, but CD protection restricts my copying AND my usage.
Another, perhaps minor, difference is that the vast majority VHS and DVD videos are rented, while the vast majority of CDs will be purchased. People don't put up with as much shit if it's their own property.
(1) DVD region restrictions are an exception. But if you notice, the "hypocritical folks are crying foul about it just as loudly as with CD protection.
I think mandatory licensing for developers is stupid. Last thing anyone needs is a new bureaucratic office dedicated to extracting fees from developers.
But warranties are a different matter. If you market your software as a commercial product, then it should have the same warranties as any other commercial product. This is common courtesy. It's also known as being ethical and moral.
If you claim that your software is suitable to be marketed by actually marketing it, then you need to back that up by NOT disclaiming merchantibility. If I buy a toaster and it doesn't work as a toaster, it has a warranty that says I can get it repaired or return it for a refund. Commercial software should be the same. If I spend $199 on a word processor and it fails to process words I want recourse. If a patch is available then I want to be able to get that patch without having to pay for it. If no patch is available, then I want my money back. Is this so hard to understand?
But before you all get your panties in a twist and start crying out that warranties will kill off Open Source, remember that this only applies to commercially sold software. No one expects merchantibility for freely downloaded software. Second, the warranty should reside with the seller, not the developer. So Redhat can sell your software and you are off the hook, because it is Redhat that is claiming the software is merchantable and not you.
(liability is a different matter. I believe that every competent business should have liability insurance. But I don't see any problem with disclaiming liability so long as the recipient knows of the disclaimer before using the software)
My current software has a warranty disclaimer. That's okay because I am not selling my software. If you wish to purchase my software, you will get a warranty with it. This warranty will cover replacement or repair of the software for one year.
emerge -s package
I just downloaded the current portage tree. I see that some ports do have descriptions, but that some do not. This is a big improvement over the last time I used it when I couldn't find any. Those empty description lines are a major pain in the ass. Go look up the description for Windowmaker. Quite useful isn't it?
Want more? Gentoo Documentation [gentoo.org]
Let me go look. I sure hope it's better than the last time (which was 1.0 or thereabouts)...
Okay, now that my eyes have stopped bleeding after those pages full of green, dark purple, light purple, red, yellow and blue highlighting, I see that there's a few more docs available. The desktop guide seems to be somewhat adequate. The portage manual is slightly easier on the eyes, and I see that it actually has a bit on "search".
Remember that Gentoo is still a "young" distribution...
First time I used Gentoo was about a year ago. It was so far from stable that LFS was easier to build. Last time I used it was version 1.0. From my perspective it seemed as if it was aimed at Gentoo developers rather than Gentoo users. It looks like 1.2 should be out soon. Maybe I'll try that.
p.s. Please note that I am not intending to rag on Gentoo. I think it had the promise at 1.0 then any other distro did at 1.0. My criticisms are aimed to improve it, not to knock it.
Of course it's not perfect. I've found "Linux" programs that won't run under any distro but Redhat...
From my own experience (undoubtedly biased by the fact that the Gentoo documentation is grossly incomplete) here is were ports beats portage:
1) Can't search portage. Under FreeBSD just do: "make search name=blarg". This will give you a wealth of information.
2) Poor documentation for portage. This may be the reason I never figured out how to do the previous. Under FreeBSD, do a "man ports" and you get all the information you need. (there's also the excellent Handbook and Porter's Guide)
3) No package descriptions! Aaaargh! If you want to know what a package does under Gentoo you download the sources and read the README in the sources. Very bad. Even a one line lazy-developer's description is better than nothing.
4) For difficult source code, it may be easier to create a Gentoo emerge file. But for simple straightforward source, the FreeBSD port Makefile is easiest.
3) Ability to install binaries packages as an option. Building from source is great, but sometimes you don't have the time.
Summary: I expect the Gentoo portage system to eventually address my concerns. In the meantime it was a very painful experience.
I'm using FreeBSD at home on my desktop, and at work on my workstation. I'm not using it as a server at all since I don't have a need for a server. I'm running Xfree86-4.2.0 with DRM, KDE-3.0.1, Mozilla, Xmms, Wine, etc. FreeBSD has an excellent Linux compatibility mode, so most Linux commercial software will run just fine.
Benefits: easy upgradability, customization and optimization via source code.
Drawbacks: you have to wait until the bleeding stops before the bleeding edge stuff is ported over.
Then Microsoft, the MPAA or RIAA, or Adobe must be involved. After all, every abuse of programming rights has to originate the Great Satan that is the United States...
You can turn off the syntax highlighting. But that misses the whole point. This new hire was panicking because he didn't have an IDE to use. He wanted something with tabbed windows, class browser (for C driver code nonetheless), debug window, and MSDN on the side...
Emacs gives him everything he needs but it's not in the visual style that he is used to. If he is going to get ahead in his career, he needs to learn how to program regardless of the tool set or media. He won't always have Visual Studio or a Visual Studio clone available. He might have to use a whiteboard in a code review. He might be stuck out at a customer site with only a ssh access to the code base.