I disagree. If music companies can sue Napster for providing a service, then what's going to stop anyone from suing a company that makes any kind of client. For example, lets take Hotline Communications Inc.. Their client/server suit can also used to download MP3's. It is also used to get plenty of other legal media. Does that mean we should shut it down because users of the server are breaking laws? Perhaps companies should sue Netscape because people browsing the net can ALSO download MP3's. Wait! We could sue people who develop FTP daemons as well! People can use FTP to transfer MP3's! The whole idea is wrong. Software manufacturers should not get in this much trouble because the end user abuses their product. Even if it was meant to be used that way.
I think what you said clearly defines the difference between using linux on a desktop or using linux on a server.
From a home user perspective, the Mandrake distribution is great. The next version will come with the next kernel, a nice KDE interface, etc., which is great for the home user. However I would never use mandrake to run a real server, much in the same way I wouln't use Corel linux. It is designed with ease of use in mind, rather than security and overall reliability.
However, I do use Debian on my servers, because I appreciate its great security and the length of testing that is done on each distribution to make sure it is secure and performs properly. It may not come with all the fancy features, but I know I can configure it to do what I need, and only what I need.
People often forget that linux is used professionally, where every little detail counts and things like Netscape are trivial. That's just my opinion.
In working with the newest developer's release of Mac OSX I have found it to be just as flexible as any other BSD box on the market today. It can run Xfree 4, so therefore Gnome, KDE etc ARE available options. You also forget that OSX is BSD based, and is just as configurable underneath. However you are right on the point of Apple's "Public Source" agreement, as it limits the the amount of core development that you can do.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. If music companies can sue Napster for providing a service, then what's going to stop anyone from suing a company that makes any kind of client.
For example, lets take Hotline Communications Inc.. Their client/server suit can also used to download MP3's. It is also used to get plenty of other legal media. Does that mean we should shut it down because users of the server are breaking laws?
Perhaps companies should sue Netscape because people browsing the net can ALSO download MP3's. Wait! We could sue people who develop FTP daemons as well! People can use FTP to transfer MP3's!
The whole idea is wrong. Software manufacturers should not get in this much trouble because the end user abuses their product. Even if it was meant to be used that way.
From a home user perspective, the Mandrake distribution is great. The next version will come with the next kernel, a nice KDE interface, etc., which is great for the home user. However I would never use mandrake to run a real server, much in the same way I wouln't use Corel linux. It is designed with ease of use in mind, rather than security and overall reliability.
However, I do use Debian on my servers, because I appreciate its great security and the length of testing that is done on each distribution to make sure it is secure and performs properly. It may not come with all the fancy features, but I know I can configure it to do what I need, and only what I need.
People often forget that linux is used professionally, where every little detail counts and things like Netscape are trivial. That's just my opinion.
In working with the newest developer's release of Mac OSX I have found it to be just as flexible as any other BSD box on the market today. It can run Xfree 4, so therefore Gnome, KDE etc ARE available options. You also forget that OSX is BSD based, and is just as configurable underneath. However you are right on the point of Apple's "Public Source" agreement, as it limits the the amount of core development that you can do.