All the comments I've had the patience to read here have it wrong. This is NOT a FREE SPEECH issue. This is a personal-accountability-and-resposibility issue. Unfortunately, that's a VERY unpopular notion these days.
No one on either side of ths issue is telling people that they can't produce porn. No one. It is still the Constitutional right of Heff and Flynt et. al. to continue to produce their magazines. No matter how much I hate it, it's still the Constitutional right for any number of faceless pornographers to put their smut on the internet. But don't get confused. The right to PRODUCE this garbage doesn't equate to my right to be able to CONSUME it.
The First Ammendment guaranteed the right to spew filth all over the internet, but nothing in the Constitution guarantees my right to be able to hear or see said filth. All it said was that Congress shall make no law restricting SPEECH. Installing filtering software at the local library doesn't restrict SPEECH. It restricts hearing. It IS censorship, and I'm not afraid of the word.
I do NOT want my tax dollars spent on guaranteeing that libraries provide unfettered access for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who walks in off the street. People howl that it is unfair for those on the other side of the digital divide. No one said it was. Nothing in the Constitution said we needed to make it so. Local libraries don't carry objectionable material because local communities won't stand for it. That's just a fact. If objectionable material can't be blocked without blocking non-objectionable content, then just DON'T HAVE ANY STINKIN' ACCESS AT ALL.
If you want unfettered access to the internet, buy a computer and get a feed. The Declaration of Independance stated that the government was designed to provide 1) life, 2) liberty, and 3) the PURSUIT of happiness. It's out there if you want it. No one is born with the inalienable right to look at porn. You want it? Go earn it. It's not the job of the government to provide you with a T1's worth of porn - or anything else on the internet - any more than it is to provide you a car or a big-screen TV.
Why would you want to join #linux anyway? Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach get on EFNet and ban entire domains of IP addresses from even asking questions.
Yeah, this is a great idea. But to implement it, Microsoft would have to hire a help desk staff that had another answer besides, "I don't know: Resintall and call us back."
Please. It is illegal to murder someone and it is illegal to obstruct justice by shredding legally-required accounting records. We all know that. Your argument hinges on the presumption that deleting an internal email is illegal. (The whole topic of people using specious moral-equivalency arguments must be left to another thread.) That's hardly the same thing. As MANY others have pointed out, there's nothing illegal about what the boss wanted. They *may* have been some ethical complications, but certainly nothing illegal.
And please note that people can and are arrested and imprisoned for murder and conspiracy to commit murder and companies are fined and sanctioned for obstructing justice. No, the system isn't perfect, but don't think everyone gets away with everything.
Yeah, but you can't *really* try it out except to *live* in it for a few weeks, and see what hassles you have to put up with and what surprises are in store.
Well, predicting that the Supreme Court actually does something to comply with the spirit of the law instead of only the letter certainly indicates enough optimism to overwhelm all the rest of these issues combined...
Taking all of 5 minutes to migrate the entire Windows domain from compiled source on Slackware to built-in runtimes on RedHat: Priceless.
Not having to touch it since I installed it except to migrate it (for about 4 years now): Also priceless.
Once it's set up, you'll never think about it again. Good luck achieving that sort of stability on Windows.
Don't get confused. You can't estimate the initial setup costs on Linux and then tack on the usual maintenance costs on Windows. For the most part, it's one or the other, and, in my experience, I'll take the larger up-front investment over the weekly hassle any day.
Re:Why Red Hat won't beat windows on the desktop
on
Red Hat 8.0 Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Just remember that "business desktop" does not equate to "BIG business desktop." I once read that 60% of businesses in the US are smaller than 100 people. Those comprise an absolute gold mine of "business desktops" that don't have to be tied to Lotus Notes or Microsoft Exchange, once a little effort is undertaken. And most certainly aren't running behemoth ERP apps like SAP, JDE, or Oracle, nor HR apps like PeopleSoft. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit for RedHat to go after here; it's just about marketing to those users and buyers.
... if no one actually dissected the arguments Ballmer was making? I have a strong suspicion that he will be receiving an analysis of what gets said here, in order to find weaknesses in the GNU/Linux world to exploit. I'd rather we not give them the opportunity. I'd rather that "our" community not help "theirs" "get it."
Since I absolutely suck at getting kernels from source to work correctly (I never get everything in there that I need I guess), the question is: When does all this great stuff reach production? (To then be pre-packaged by RedHat, et. al.)
I am one of those people who are greatly concerned about these developments. I believe that they restrict freedoms that have been protected under the Constitution. That whole discussion is much bigger than I can articulate, but I wanted to provide context to show that I am completely opposed to Palladium.
(On the other hand, I think 95% of everything being made in Hollywood and Nashville is utter crap. I don't even have cable or a DVD player. I get 3 or 5 channels, depending on the weather, and rent a movie now and again. I just don't want what they're pandering.)
All of that being said, the example above of someone wanting to burn a DVD as a backup is perfect. That's a legitimate use of the technology that stands to be obviated by these new laws/technologies. (Notice the big scheme unfolding such that they made breaking DRM illegal, then started forcing it down our throats. Don't say that Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA aren't learning fast...)
However, this is SUCH a legitimate use of such technology, that it won't go unchecked. If Microsoft and the media companies make it illegal to make backups or personal home movies on DVD's, you can bet that someone else will invent a device to get the same job done.
Don't tell me that "it'll have DRM too." You're right; it will. That's not the point. The legitimate users will get hardware that will do the job. The companies that make that hardware will tailor their implementation of DRM to coexist with Microsoft's, yet still allow what you need to do.
Also, don't tell me that Microsoft won't allow such things. You're right; they won't. But backlash and fear of actually having the government instigate a lawsuit with some Q#)(%&!@#)$(& TEETH will force them to allow enough of this to be done that real, legitimate use will still happen.
And that money won't be flowing Microsoft's way.
And that will cause Microsoft to loosen restrictions on the technology.
In other words, it won't be as bad as people think it will be, to start out with (myself included), and I think that, in turn, it will be prevented from being as bad as people think in the long run. I think you'll have another DRM "drive" that plays protected media, and a burnable drive that will do anything BUT play and record such things.
You shouldn't be forcing people to use a perticular font on a web site in any case whatsoever. That's a decision to be left to the client's renderer. If you absolutely MUST dictate a precise font face, for a specific purpose, then create a graphic of what you want, and use that. But forcing fonts on people will eventually bite you in the rear end. What about sight-impaired people who need HUGE fonts in order to read a web page? If you've forced 12 pt blahfoobar, they're screwed.
Every time I hear somebody talking about getting `support' from Microsoft, I have to really wonder about how clueful they are. I'm a programmer / backup admin for a very large Fortune 500 company. I only recently moved into programming from doing the Unix and backup NT administration in the core data center group. I was good friends with all of the main NT support guys and all of the intranet developers (where we use all Windows-based stuff).
In all the years I've done development and administration, I've called them on a per-incident basis 4 times, and they've only been able to solve the problem twice. And I've NEVER heard people talking about getting support from Microsoft. In all the problems we have, with all the Microsoft products we use: Win2K, WinNT, Exchange, IIS, SQL Server, SMS, and all the attendent stuff, I've NEVER heard of anyone else even calling Microsoft.
Our attitude, in a company of over 30,000 employees is basically this: if it ain't workin', reinstall. And I think that's basically Microsoft's answer to most problems as well, based on the limited contact I've had with them.
Sure there's a guy that has an MSDN subscription, but he doesn't do front line work. The main dude is a young guy and he tries very hard, but he never called Microsoft while I was working in the core group, and he was VERY green around the gills. (And don't get me wrong. I know my way around; I was offered the team lead spot. And, I was offered the job he had before he came to work for us, though I never told him that.) We don't budget for it. Not only that, but I have had to almost beg my bosses for every call I've made to Microsoft.
What I'm trying to say is that this `big company' doesn't even have Microsoft support on the radar. What are people talking about when it comes to this? I know you can buy support packages, but we don't. We just allow ourselves to be extorted by Microsoft (yes, we took the bait on the latest `upgrade now or pay full price later' gimmick) and then take comfort in the fact they're a big company with `good support.' But after paying millions of dollars every year for licenses - despite being on the best Select schedule you can be on - we never take advantage of it.
I suspect most other companies, unless their *primary* business is software development or IT consulting - don't either, and IT workers who would like to see open source alternatives get a fair shake should try to do what they can to point out this discrepancy. Just because the CIO is reading this kind of nonsense in Information Week don't make it so.
Yes, but there's funadamental social problem that is completely avoided by seeing your mates in person: that anonymity breeds irresposibility. When you play across the table from someone, there's much less likelyhood that you will kill their character for fun or spite, because that person might come across that very table after you - for REAL! That's what's broken, and a cryptographic system of trust might indeed be a way of putting trust and responsibility for one's actions back into online gaming.
I saw a video of his one-man show where he discussed a lot of this material. I thought it was going along just fine until he makes the discovery that everyone BUT him in his department is worth millions of dollars. In the video I saw, he calls that day the worst of his life. Excuse me? Just because someone is more ANYthing than you, does that somehow detract from who you are? (And by corollary, just because someone is less of SOMEthing than you, does that make you a bigger person?) Not me. I think the revelation is more than a little telling. He's bitter about being left out. Well, no one said life was fair, and it's only the left-wing nut-balls that think that we must somehow force it to be so. (And yes, I'm a right-wing nut-ball.) He then goes on to talk about how he ``used to have a soul, used to have values,'' and used to think that the Republican party was thinking correctly about taxes. I felt suckered. Here I thought I was watching an insightful commentary about a landmark of the ``dot-con'' era, and in the last 10 minutes, he turned it all into a completely liberal socio-political commentary. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If that's your thing, have a great time. Just know up front that I think he would do the same in the book.
Actually, this was such a good point, I had to follow up, even though I never follow up my own posts. (Hey, I figure I've said my peace.) You know what? I've never thought of this before, and I stand corrected. (And I'm man enough to say this even though you've been a complete jerk in making the point.)
This issue goes much deeper than ``free porn at the library,'' though most people can't see that. It's a polarizing issue because it's fundamentally an issue of good versus evil. I know this is bad practice, because it's somehow become ``politcally incorrect'' to talk about right and wrong, but that's really what's happening here.
This is nothing but a loss of shame, and it's only really happened within the last 30 or 40 years. The fact of the matter is that pornography is sin, plain and simple. These issues are very clear with respect to the Bible, the standard by which more than a few of us actually, really live, despite how antiquated some people make that out to be. And probably the best thing about that is that the Bible covers everything you need to know about all the other ``issues'' out there.
As the father of a 3-year-old budding genious who *adores* the library, I am *extremely* concerned about what she might see on the computers at my local branch, even just in passing. My question for all those who grand-stand on the constitutionality of this isse is this: can you get hardcore porn at the library? No, of course not.
I certainly agree that there's no way to prevent throwing out *some* worthwhile material when you filter pornagrphy from the internet, but I say, "Fine!" I think most of us with toddlers would agree that eliminating frank discussions of sexuality would *also* be a good thing. If libraries are going to permit unfettered access to all of the garbage of the internet, then it ought to at least be in a room into which only the librarians can see, so that those of us wanting to avoid it don't have to go out of our way to do it. It's just too easy to see emotionally-scarring material (of ALL kinds) on the internet, even as adults!
If we're not going to filter anything, then those units have to be considered and treated just like a hard-core porn rag. Can you not see that the ``good parenting'' line of reasoning will force me to stop taking my child to the library if my local branch allows unfiltered computers where my girl can see them? There's no question in my mind that those computers will primarily be used for looking at things I don't want my daughter to see. The one thing that must be remembered in all of this is that YOUR exercise of a right MUST NOT impede MY ability to NOT exercise that same ``right.''
And since when is using MY tax dollars to give someone free internet access a ``right,'' anyway? If someone wants unfiltered access to the internet, they can get their own money and buy their own computer and access. Then they can do whatever they want with it. Just because a technology is POSSIBLE doesn't mean that it's your right to have access to it.
Because if that's true, I demand to be the next ``civilian'' into space, at no expense to me, of course.
Looks to me like the SAMBA project leaders need to immediately cut off access for commits to their CVS servers until everyone who wants to contribute signs a contract that swears that they haven't seen Microsoft's documentation, and promises that they never will.
Basically, if you can't say something without being known for it, you shouldn't have said it. That includes criticisms. If you can't criticize someone - or some company - in a non-libelous way, then you shouldn't do it. Attaching a name to your comment is the only way to hold yourself accountable - something that's really out of style today.
One: It blows my mind that we (the Slashdot community) have so many extremely-knowledgable people in our ranks. Some of this discussion is so far over my head, it's scary. (But I'm just a mechanincal engineer, not a computer scientist.)
Two: It seems to me that several people established how stupid this company was early on. Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about why they would try to do such a thing? Is it to gather venture capital? What are the backgrounds of the people involved? Do they have a history of grift?
My point is that this is obviously a sham. What's the story behind the story?
Slashdot Mirror
It's called vipul's razor.
All the comments I've had the patience to read here have it wrong. This is NOT a FREE SPEECH issue. This is a personal-accountability-and-resposibility issue. Unfortunately, that's a VERY unpopular notion these days.
No one on either side of ths issue is telling people that they can't produce porn. No one. It is still the Constitutional right of Heff and Flynt et. al. to continue to produce their magazines. No matter how much I hate it, it's still the Constitutional right for any number of faceless pornographers to put their smut on the internet. But don't get confused. The right to PRODUCE this garbage doesn't equate to my right to be able to CONSUME it.
The First Ammendment guaranteed the right to spew filth all over the internet, but nothing in the Constitution guarantees my right to be able to hear or see said filth. All it said was that Congress shall make no law restricting SPEECH. Installing filtering software at the local library doesn't restrict SPEECH. It restricts hearing. It IS censorship, and I'm not afraid of the word.
I do NOT want my tax dollars spent on guaranteeing that libraries provide unfettered access for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who walks in off the street. People howl that it is unfair for those on the other side of the digital divide. No one said it was. Nothing in the Constitution said we needed to make it so. Local libraries don't carry objectionable material because local communities won't stand for it. That's just a fact. If objectionable material can't be blocked without blocking non-objectionable content, then just DON'T HAVE ANY STINKIN' ACCESS AT ALL.
If you want unfettered access to the internet, buy a computer and get a feed. The Declaration of Independance stated that the government was designed to provide 1) life, 2) liberty, and 3) the PURSUIT of happiness. It's out there if you want it. No one is born with the inalienable right to look at porn. You want it? Go earn it. It's not the job of the government to provide you with a T1's worth of porn - or anything else on the internet - any more than it is to provide you a car or a big-screen TV.
I posit another corollary: All software expands until it employs a "registry" of some type and spawns an editor for its database format.
And I hate rounded window corners.
dk
Why would you want to join #linux anyway? Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach get on EFNet and ban entire domains of IP addresses from even asking questions.
Yeah, this is a great idea. But to implement it, Microsoft would have to hire a help desk staff that had another answer besides, "I don't know: Resintall and call us back."
Please. It is illegal to murder someone and it is illegal to obstruct justice by shredding legally-required accounting records. We all know that. Your argument hinges on the presumption that deleting an internal email is illegal. (The whole topic of people using specious moral-equivalency arguments must be left to another thread.) That's hardly the same thing. As MANY others have pointed out, there's nothing illegal about what the boss wanted. They *may* have been some ethical complications, but certainly nothing illegal.
And please note that people can and are arrested and imprisoned for murder and conspiracy to commit murder and companies are fined and sanctioned for obstructing justice. No, the system isn't perfect, but don't think everyone gets away with everything.
Yeah, but you can't *really* try it out except to *live* in it for a few weeks, and see what hassles you have to put up with and what surprises are in store.
Woohoo! Let's hear it for the unabashed optimist!
Well, predicting that the Supreme Court actually does something to comply with the spirit of the law instead of only the letter certainly indicates enough optimism to overwhelm all the rest of these issues combined...
Once it's set up, you'll never think about it again. Good luck achieving that sort of stability on Windows.
Don't get confused. You can't estimate the initial setup costs on Linux and then tack on the usual maintenance costs on Windows. For the most part, it's one or the other, and, in my experience, I'll take the larger up-front investment over the weekly hassle any day.
Just remember that "business desktop" does not equate to "BIG business desktop." I once read that 60% of businesses in the US are smaller than 100 people. Those comprise an absolute gold mine of "business desktops" that don't have to be tied to Lotus Notes or Microsoft Exchange, once a little effort is undertaken. And most certainly aren't running behemoth ERP apps like SAP, JDE, or Oracle, nor HR apps like PeopleSoft. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit for RedHat to go after here; it's just about marketing to those users and buyers.
... if no one actually dissected the arguments Ballmer was making? I have a strong suspicion that he will be receiving an analysis of what gets said here, in order to find weaknesses in the GNU/Linux world to exploit. I'd rather we not give them the opportunity. I'd rather that "our" community not help "theirs" "get it."
Since I absolutely suck at getting kernels from source to work correctly (I never get everything in there that I need I guess), the question is: When does all this great stuff reach production? (To then be pre-packaged by RedHat, et. al.)
I am one of those people who are greatly concerned about these developments. I believe that they restrict freedoms that have been protected under the Constitution. That whole discussion is much bigger than I can articulate, but I wanted to provide context to show that I am completely opposed to Palladium.
(On the other hand, I think 95% of everything being made in Hollywood and Nashville is utter crap. I don't even have cable or a DVD player. I get 3 or 5 channels, depending on the weather, and rent a movie now and again. I just don't want what they're pandering.)
All of that being said, the example above of someone wanting to burn a DVD as a backup is perfect. That's a legitimate use of the technology that stands to be obviated by these new laws/technologies. (Notice the big scheme unfolding such that they made breaking DRM illegal, then started forcing it down our throats. Don't say that Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA aren't learning fast...)
However, this is SUCH a legitimate use of such technology, that it won't go unchecked. If Microsoft and the media companies make it illegal to make backups or personal home movies on DVD's, you can bet that someone else will invent a device to get the same job done.
Don't tell me that "it'll have DRM too." You're right; it will. That's not the point. The legitimate users will get hardware that will do the job. The companies that make that hardware will tailor their implementation of DRM to coexist with Microsoft's, yet still allow what you need to do.
Also, don't tell me that Microsoft won't allow such things. You're right; they won't. But backlash and fear of actually having the government instigate a lawsuit with some Q#)(%&!@#)$(& TEETH will force them to allow enough of this to be done that real, legitimate use will still happen.
And that money won't be flowing Microsoft's way.
And that will cause Microsoft to loosen restrictions on the technology.
In other words, it won't be as bad as people think it will be, to start out with (myself included), and I think that, in turn, it will be prevented from being as bad as people think in the long run. I think you'll have another DRM "drive" that plays protected media, and a burnable drive that will do anything BUT play and record such things.
--
I'm David Krider, and that's why I use Linux.
You shouldn't be forcing people to use a perticular font on a web site in any case whatsoever. That's a decision to be left to the client's renderer. If you absolutely MUST dictate a precise font face, for a specific purpose, then create a graphic of what you want, and use that. But forcing fonts on people will eventually bite you in the rear end. What about sight-impaired people who need HUGE fonts in order to read a web page? If you've forced 12 pt blahfoobar, they're screwed.
And you - teach - this stuff?
On the other hand, maybe it will get some really smart people thinking about how to disarm a DoS attack once and for all...
Every time I hear somebody talking about getting `support' from Microsoft, I have to really wonder about how clueful they are. I'm a programmer / backup admin for a very large Fortune 500 company. I only recently moved into programming from doing the Unix and backup NT administration in the core data center group. I was good friends with all of the main NT support guys and all of the intranet developers (where we use all Windows-based stuff).
In all the years I've done development and administration, I've called them on a per-incident basis 4 times, and they've only been able to solve the problem twice. And I've NEVER heard people talking about getting support from Microsoft. In all the problems we have, with all the Microsoft products we use: Win2K, WinNT, Exchange, IIS, SQL Server, SMS, and all the attendent stuff, I've NEVER heard of anyone else even calling Microsoft.
Our attitude, in a company of over 30,000 employees is basically this: if it ain't workin', reinstall. And I think that's basically Microsoft's answer to most problems as well, based on the limited contact I've had with them.
Sure there's a guy that has an MSDN subscription, but he doesn't do front line work. The main dude is a young guy and he tries very hard, but he never called Microsoft while I was working in the core group, and he was VERY green around the gills. (And don't get me wrong. I know my way around; I was offered the team lead spot. And, I was offered the job he had before he came to work for us, though I never told him that.) We don't budget for it. Not only that, but I have had to almost beg my bosses for every call I've made to Microsoft.
What I'm trying to say is that this `big company' doesn't even have Microsoft support on the radar. What are people talking about when it comes to this? I know you can buy support packages, but we don't. We just allow ourselves to be extorted by Microsoft (yes, we took the bait on the latest `upgrade now or pay full price later' gimmick) and then take comfort in the fact they're a big company with `good support.' But after paying millions of dollars every year for licenses - despite being on the best Select schedule you can be on - we never take advantage of it.
I suspect most other companies, unless their *primary* business is software development or IT consulting - don't either, and IT workers who would like to see open source alternatives get a fair shake should try to do what they can to point out this discrepancy. Just because the CIO is reading this kind of nonsense in Information Week don't make it so.
Yes, but there's funadamental social problem that is completely avoided by seeing your mates in person: that anonymity breeds irresposibility. When you play across the table from someone, there's much less likelyhood that you will kill their character for fun or spite, because that person might come across that very table after you - for REAL! That's what's broken, and a cryptographic system of trust might indeed be a way of putting trust and responsibility for one's actions back into online gaming.
I saw a video of his one-man show where he discussed a lot of this material. I thought it was going along just fine until he makes the discovery that everyone BUT him in his department is worth millions of dollars. In the video I saw, he calls that day the worst of his life. Excuse me? Just because someone is more ANYthing than you, does that somehow detract from who you are? (And by corollary, just because someone is less of SOMEthing than you, does that make you a bigger person?) Not me. I think the revelation is more than a little telling. He's bitter about being left out. Well, no one said life was fair, and it's only the left-wing nut-balls that think that we must somehow force it to be so. (And yes, I'm a right-wing nut-ball.) He then goes on to talk about how he ``used to have a soul, used to have values,'' and used to think that the Republican party was thinking correctly about taxes. I felt suckered. Here I thought I was watching an insightful commentary about a landmark of the ``dot-con'' era, and in the last 10 minutes, he turned it all into a completely liberal socio-political commentary. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If that's your thing, have a great time. Just know up front that I think he would do the same in the book.
Actually, this was such a good point, I had to follow up, even though I never follow up my own posts. (Hey, I figure I've said my peace.) You know what? I've never thought of this before, and I stand corrected. (And I'm man enough to say this even though you've been a complete jerk in making the point.)
This issue goes much deeper than ``free porn at the library,'' though most people can't see that. It's a polarizing issue because it's fundamentally an issue of good versus evil. I know this is bad practice, because it's somehow become ``politcally incorrect'' to talk about right and wrong, but that's really what's happening here.
This is nothing but a loss of shame, and it's only really happened within the last 30 or 40 years. The fact of the matter is that pornography is sin, plain and simple. These issues are very clear with respect to the Bible, the standard by which more than a few of us actually, really live, despite how antiquated some people make that out to be. And probably the best thing about that is that the Bible covers everything you need to know about all the other ``issues'' out there.
Imagine that! Who knew?
You don't have any kids, do you?
As the father of a 3-year-old budding genious who *adores* the library, I am *extremely* concerned about what she might see on the computers at my local branch, even just in passing. My question for all those who grand-stand on the constitutionality of this isse is this: can you get hardcore porn at the library? No, of course not.
I certainly agree that there's no way to prevent throwing out *some* worthwhile material when you filter pornagrphy from the internet, but I say, "Fine!" I think most of us with toddlers would agree that eliminating frank discussions of sexuality would *also* be a good thing. If libraries are going to permit unfettered access to all of the garbage of the internet, then it ought to at least be in a room into which only the librarians can see, so that those of us wanting to avoid it don't have to go out of our way to do it. It's just too easy to see emotionally-scarring material (of ALL kinds) on the internet, even as adults!
If we're not going to filter anything, then those units have to be considered and treated just like a hard-core porn rag. Can you not see that the ``good parenting'' line of reasoning will force me to stop taking my child to the library if my local branch allows unfiltered computers where my girl can see them? There's no question in my mind that those computers will primarily be used for looking at things I don't want my daughter to see. The one thing that must be remembered in all of this is that YOUR exercise of a right MUST NOT impede MY ability to NOT exercise that same ``right.''
And since when is using MY tax dollars to give someone free internet access a ``right,'' anyway? If someone wants unfiltered access to the internet, they can get their own money and buy their own computer and access. Then they can do whatever they want with it. Just because a technology is POSSIBLE doesn't mean that it's your right to have access to it.
Because if that's true, I demand to be the next ``civilian'' into space, at no expense to me, of course.
Looks to me like the SAMBA project leaders need to immediately cut off access for commits to their CVS servers until everyone who wants to contribute signs a contract that swears that they haven't seen Microsoft's documentation, and promises that they never will.
dk
Found on April 1 with a team leader by the name "Monty Halls?" Sounds like a prank to me...
Basically, if you can't say something without being known for it, you shouldn't have said it. That includes criticisms. If you can't criticize someone - or some company - in a non-libelous way, then you shouldn't do it. Attaching a name to your comment is the only way to hold yourself accountable - something that's really out of style today.
dk
One: It blows my mind that we (the Slashdot community) have so many extremely-knowledgable people in our ranks. Some of this discussion is so far over my head, it's scary. (But I'm just a mechanincal engineer, not a computer scientist.)
Two: It seems to me that several people established how stupid this company was early on. Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about why they would try to do such a thing? Is it to gather venture capital? What are the backgrounds of the people involved? Do they have a history of grift?
My point is that this is obviously a sham. What's the story behind the story?
dk