User: AntiFUD

Propritry licence

On: The New Linux Myth Dispeller

The document appears to be licensed under the open content licence. If sufficient FUD can be generated about open source, someone can point to that licence as a reason not to read the document. Perhaps the creators can also release it with a proprietary licence.

:)

Just to clear something up.

On: Slashback: Reneging, Wandering, Spamming

Sysadmins in a corporation do *NOT* own the hardware or handwidth that they operate on.

The sysadmin has been given the right to use the hardware by the ISP.

That's like saying that as a landlord of a building you have the right to read through my mail and throw out anyhting that looks like junk (or if you prefer bulk) mail right?

The RBL is like a newspaper that publishes a list of senders that have promiscuous mail servers. The landlords then can offer a service to their clients that blocks any mail from these servers. The person being sued is not some rogue landlord, but the newspaper.

In fact if you so much as read another's private email correspondence from start to finish you have commited a violation of privacy of the user.

The RBL and the person using the RBL do not read the email. They look at the envelope (figuratively, technically they don't even do that).

Re:Reality check.

On: Solar Powered Colocation

a solar cell today still takes more energy to manufacture than it will produce in its usable life.

This was quickly proven to be false. Now even the fossil fuel advocates have dropped the accusation. They now claim around 5 years as a break even point. Solar panels are getting better, so I think 5 years is far too high, but that is more of a debatable point, and not FUD.