I wish I had mod points, to give you an "offtopic." The question to the group was comparing WCS to Beowulf from a performance/functionality perspective, not from a licencing perspective. The original poster (and most readers of this board) appears to be familiar with the licensing differences.
One of the biggest problems with Open Source advocacy is a tendancy to argue irrelevant points, then claim relvancy for an equally irrelevant reason (usually "MS is evil" political kinda thing). This post is a perfect example.
apple.slashdot.org?!? How come no "windows.slashdot.org." There are plenty of people out there who like Windows as an OS, even using other tools (perl, EMACS, etc.) on them. I number among this group. I'm sure being able to discuss relvent topics would be as much of interested to them as to Apple users.
Possible explanations:
Microsoft is the Evil Empire Perhaps. However, let's not blame the child for the parent.
Widnows sucks A matter of opinion (let's not start a flame war on this one). Pleanty hold that opinion of Apple, Linux, ??BSD, Palm, OS/2, etc. Let's stop the hate.
Widnows has all these bugs! So does everything else. If anything, this demonstrates the need for a forum.
Windows isn't open source Neither is Apple.
The owners of the board don't feel like it Quite reasonable.
I think the process that they used to weed out the "useless" content clearly indicates that they are not in the slightest concerned with majority opinion, but are more interested in the actual content of opinions.
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Keep this in mind: do you give more weight to posts that contain an thoughtful arguement, or to a bunch of "me too" posts?
Also, I think you are confusing a legal determination from an election. The latter is a case where noone cares why someone favors one side or another, simply how many favorred a given side.
The legal detemriantion, however, looks to see why it is felt an action would be in violation of laws on the books, what the impact would be on affected groups (in this case, consumers, etc.). Quality over quantity matters.
IMHO, the geekiest guy on FoodTV is Alton Brown. He'll have a cookbook out in April.
Why is he geeky? He doesn't do like, say, Emeril (cook something we mortals can't, shout "Bam" a lot), but teaches you how to cook. What are the properties of this ingredient? What equipment do I need? Why do we put buttermilk and baking soda together?
(Answer to the last one: carbon dioxide creates a degree of rising)
This is an excellent question! Too often, I have wondered if the tone and fever of the Slashdot encourages bad behavior and hate. To read some of the rants, you would think that many posters would blame someone for putting a poor lack on their door, and excuse the crimnal who stole everything from the place.
Some things are wrong. DoS attacks are wrong. Illicitly breaking into systems are wrong.
Yes, there are some things that are also wrong, and should be fought. However, unless the community takes a strong stance against those who hear a message and take it to an extreme, everyone will be pushed into the "bad" category, and noone will enjoy any credibility.
As to why malicious coders concentrate on MS, it's because it's easy. The coders at MS keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Look at the UPNP exploits.
Gee, to read this, you'd think that MS actually creates security holes as a feature. Let's make one thing perfectly clear:
Even though there might be an "exploit," writing the virus in the first place is wrong. True, a security flaw shouldn't be there, and patches are release. Yes, sometimes it requires reactive actions (the virus prompts the patch). In other cases, it's proactive (Nimbda was fixed in SP2 of Win2K).
Please note: this is true of any OS, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, VMS, NetWare, Mac, etc.
I can see two reasons why someone might target MS. First is the quanity of users--more targets to hit.
Further, there is this logic:
All the K00L kidz are using Linux. I think I will, and not use that lame MS OS. (There was an artical about bad Linux advocacy a few months ago. Please see that for a better description of this mentality).
Boy are they evil. Look at all these comments on Slashdot.
I know! I will write a virus. Then everyone will see just how bad MS is, and switch to Linux!
And, perhaps to a degree they are working. I ask you: is that how you want Linux to win?
Wow! All of the sudden, I'm thinking of the commerical with the guy in the suit with the question marks all over it. "Get your free money from the goverment--get a grant to write a book, start a buisiness, or sit on your..."
A college degree implies a well rounded education. Not only do you have programming, but general CS theory, plus classes in other subjects that make someone more well-rounded. This, IMHO, makes someone more adaptable to different environments beyond just coding. Further, they learn to work in diverse environments.
Also, there is a great deal hard work and dedication that goes into getting a degree, especially if it is with a good GPA at a good school. Such attributes are always desirable in an employee. There are other ways of demonstrating it, but it is a way. In contrast, those who come "two classes short", then say "I didn't see the point" might be able to succeed. But, at the end of the day, when they are passed over by someone who does have those "extra two pieces and just a piece a paper," the fact tht they didn't commit themselve to finishing a task comes to light.
I have worked in industry for almost ten years now. Though there are exceptions, education level usually implies the quality of the employee. The folks with degrees generally are able to produce better output of all sorts (programs, documentation, proposals, etc.), write more literately, and are able to adapt to a greater diversity of circumstances. Further, they are generally more presentable to bring in front of senior client folks.
One big question that kyrex presents, to me anyway, is, "where are you going?" He says that he feels his progress is hampered by lack of a degree. What is "the next step?" Perhaps he will be a project lead or a manager. In that case, he will need a lot of things such as project management, accounting and budgetting, and similar skills. I know the CS track at my school had those sorts of things built-in.
Also, in consulting, appearance can be a huge factor. While a low-to-medium level grunt coder can be any old bloke, someone in a position of responsibility (again, I'm inferring) would be responsible for the relationship with the customer. The customer needs to have faith. Twelve years experience might mean you have a diverse set of experiences that built to the role, or that you've been coding for twelve years. The college degree offers the cleint an extra warm fuzzy.
Finally, something I need to scream: A college degree is not certification!!!! Certification is like a driver's license: it demonstrates you can handle one discrete skill to a minimum level. A college degree shows you've been able to maintain a certain level of performance over a diverse set of trails, some related, some not. This diversity is what makes the difference.
Wait! This is Slashdot! I thought mentioning operating systems by *that* company was forbiden--at least in a complimentary light. Certainly recommending them is gauche, to say the least.:)
As big a fan as I am of the WinNT line (NT/2000/XP), I really don't care for the CE line. It tried to be too much of a desktop, at the expense of being a convient assistant to my day-to-day life (schedule, addresses, reading material for the bus, etc.). Handheld space, IMHO, really needs an OS that works to be a handheld, not a desktop-in-a-pocket. Same reason I don't think Linux is quite right for handhelds.
Palm tries to be a handheld OS. I recognize that running Perl on it might be a contradition to my "don't be a desktop" theory, but I am not looking for all fo the same power (mostly something to amuse me on the bus, or do some manipulation of records (the area code of my family changed!)), and don't want to sacrifice it's primary mission--being a PDA.
I, too am a perl fan. It does almost any sort of programming I need it to. I can do it quickly. And, I can port the script near-seamlessly accross almost every platform I deal with--except my Palm.
In fact, I have convinced my teammates to take it up as our de facto standard scripting language.
Now, if I could just port it to all platforms I deal with (hint for perl for palm)
I read an article a few years ago that postulated that fax was a regressive step. The thesis went something like this:
Back in the 80s (just before faxes became commonplace), America was on the brink of being able to go electronic--using such tools as EDI and other connection mechanisms. Since most of our business was in english (26 letters, 10 numbers, plus miscilanious punctuation)it would happen readily.
The Japanese, however, created cheaper/smaller/better fax machines than were available at the time. Makes perfect sense in that environment, as there are several orders of magnitude more characters to deal with (can't encode as easily).
The cheap and easy fax machine is shipped to the States, and were a hit. They allowed electronic-fast communication without having to significantly change how business was done (signitures could still be in ink, for instance). Further, it was, at the time, cheaper.
Had fax not come along, electronic means would have started to come in earlier. Business adoption of e-mail might have happened sooner, and some things necessary to facilitate business (that still doesn't really exist) such as digital signatures would develope more rapidly.
I submit the fax is still retarding growth. Need something signed--just fax it to me! For that reason, I don't think e-mail will ever completely displace the fax.
Of course, William Gibson wrote in the anthology _Cyberspace_ that no communication technology every dies--it merely finds niche uses.
Ah! A common second argument for Open Source: the code is free, download it and build it yourself.
Anytime you say that, be it for accessability components, security patches, etc, you are basically saying that the company has to make an investment in resouces (staff, contractors, etc.) who are capable of building/investigating/etc. the required components. That's easy if you are, say, McDonalds. But, if you are the small business down the street, it is a huge investment.
In contrast, the cost of accessability is spread among all of a propritary developer's customers. So, "niche" featues are more readily integtrated.
Just because you have the source doesn't mean it is practical for just anything to be added.
A critisism of the Open Source model is that nothing gets done unless it scratches someone's itch. I submit that this post reflects that attitude: it it doesn't interest me, why build it? You want it: build it yourself.
That is fine when you want, say, an new video driver. But, you create a catch-22: you need a development environment to create accessability options, but if you have no accessability options, you can't use the development environment.
So, if you want to take the stance of "what's the point..if [almost] noone will get any useage from [it]," you simply prove the "must scratch someone's itch" point. And, you show a weakness of Open Source.
Further, you want Linux on the desktop? Some companies will require an accessability solution.
Did I mention is was, you know, the right thing to do?
If the right tool for the job is Open Source, then I use the Open Source tool.
If the right tool is proprietary, then I use propritary.
Is that wrong?
"Right tool," for my purposes is the one that can accomplish the task quickly, stably, fits into the existing architecture, and can be supported (both internally (having staff trained in the technology) and externally (support from vendor or other third party)). If something does the job, but is a departure from our architecture, it may not be the right tool.
Open Source, the methodology, is just one solution to a problem. Proprietary may be another. If the Open Source doesn't suite the needs of a given application, not only would it not be chosen, it should not be chosen. That is how a marketplace works.
Besides, does it help "the movement" if an inferior solution is chosen just because it is Open Source? While it means a greater installed base, it would not put the best face forward. In effect, the rational for that is quite similar to FUD.
Do the same thing anyone else does when they feel they are on the wrong path.
First, whine about it. I think your post is a good start on this one.
Second, try to decide if it is the routine of school that you are sick of, your major, or the material. You might find that you are simply burnt out of the school thing, have a few classes that aren't exciting, or just have senioritis, and want to move on wtih your life. This is OK. You may get out into The World, find a niche, and be happy again. Remember: school is not real life.
Third, if you think it really is the IT field that is going to cause you fits, try to see if you can make small moves. Perhaps you have enough credits in a minor that you can shuffle around and not extend your time in school too much. Or, find a company that has a career path that allows you to do true IT for a while, then move into a semi-related discipline (IT management, technical writing, etc.).
Fourth, if it really looks bleak, start over. Get a new major, find a "teach for America" program, join the military, or go to grad school. there are alternatives, it may, however, require a totally different plan.
Finally, if you can't start over, can't manouver, and don't think it is a temporary thing, grin and bare it. Punch your clock for eight hours a day. Do the best job you can. Take the paycheck, no matter how meager, and enjoy your life. See your family. Have cool hobbies. And accept that you are not assured you will love your job!
Re:The future of handhelds
on
Palm OS Spinoff
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think you are right: WinCE was never a contender. Palm may or may not be the future, but it does something that I don't think WinCE does, or a port of Linux would: fit the market. I don't hide I perfer NT to Linux. However, when I went out this year to get a new PDA, I didn't get a WinCE device.
Why? WinCE wasn't trying to be a handheld. It is trying to be a slimmed down version of a desktop OS. While it does enable some interesting ports (I'm still waiting for a port of Perl to the Palm (what a tounge twister!)) for a lot of PDA use (calander, to-do list, contacts, quick notes), it isn't the right model.
Palm, on the other hand, seems to do better. Perhaps Linux would with the right mix of apps, but I simply don't see it scaling that way and fitting into the day-to-day life of the average user.
Perhaps, instead, it will be a third (or, in this case, fourth) thing all together. Are there any serious PDA OSs out there aside from Palm and WinCE?
1. Don't use e-mail: This has been discussed many times before. E-mail campaigns may look a little too contrived, and many not give the staff an idea what the real opinion is. True, a mail campaign can be "astroturf roots," but at least there is a hint of accountability in paper.
2. Stick to *Your* Members of Congress: True, others will listen politely, but, at the end of the day, they have to be reelected. If most of their district has an interest or opion that is unique to them, they respect the man who caters to that.
3. Avoid Blanket Campaigns: If it looks like you have written a 'bot to mail every member of congress, you are more likely to be disregarded.
I know others have posted this, but you have to accept that slashdot isn't like the rest of the word.
Drones have been used for reconnaissance for quite some time. During the conflicts in Southeast Asia during the early 70s, drones would be launched from DC-130s, fly a mission over Vietnam, then recoverred by a CH-3 helecoptor. See here for some history.
They had two or three confirmed "kills," where they were able to force a MiG into a mountain.
The most interesting implementation was using the drones to drop propaganda leaflets. I understand they were called "bullsh*t bombers" for this mission. A book I saw has the caption, "Can bombs be far behind." Thirty years later, they're getting there.
If you are so anti-Microsoft that you feel the need to create a site against it, isn't it a touch hypocrtical to be using a Microsoft product to do that? In other words, if Microsoft is so evil, why are you using their product? (I know some may say they have no choice. Why? For instance, if it is "your company's toolset," they probably don't want you creating an anti-anything site on thier dime)
Can anyone really blame them if they don't want to have their own tools used against them. It's like a wife not having to testify against her husband. Or creating a stipped down version of a a fighter for export (a Carter administration idea that didn't work out).
They aren't saying you can't create an anti-Microsoft site, or that they can't exist at all. They are simply saying that their tools can't be used for it. What's the problem with that?
Put another way: what if I created an anti-Linux site using the Tux image? Right now I'm not prohibited from using it, but I'm sure that would upset a lot of the people who post here. Now, take it to the next step: I develop the site on a Linux system, hosting it on a Linux server.
Slashdot Mirror
For hobbiest, a limited license is free. So, if you are sitting at home playing on your Solaris box, you are OK.
If, on the other hand, it is for commercial purposes, it is not free.
One of the biggest problems with Open Source advocacy is a tendancy to argue irrelevant points, then claim relvancy for an equally irrelevant reason (usually "MS is evil" political kinda thing). This post is a perfect example.
Possible explanations:
Even a different section might be worthwhile.
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Keep this in mind: do you give more weight to posts that contain an thoughtful arguement, or to a bunch of "me too" posts?
Also, I think you are confusing a legal determination from an election. The latter is a case where noone cares why someone favors one side or another, simply how many favorred a given side.
The legal detemriantion, however, looks to see why it is felt an action would be in violation of laws on the books, what the impact would be on affected groups (in this case, consumers, etc.). Quality over quantity matters.
Why is he geeky? He doesn't do like, say, Emeril (cook something we mortals can't, shout "Bam" a lot), but teaches you how to cook. What are the properties of this ingredient? What equipment do I need? Why do we put buttermilk and baking soda together?
(Answer to the last one: carbon dioxide creates a degree of rising)
Some things are wrong. DoS attacks are wrong. Illicitly breaking into systems are wrong.
Yes, there are some things that are also wrong, and should be fought. However, unless the community takes a strong stance against those who hear a message and take it to an extreme, everyone will be pushed into the "bad" category, and noone will enjoy any credibility.
"Gargoyle"
(Per Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash")
As I recall, it was a term that was kinda looked down upon...kinda like the view some of these posts project.
Gee, to read this, you'd think that MS actually creates security holes as a feature. Let's make one thing perfectly clear:
Even though there might be an "exploit," writing the virus in the first place is wrong. True, a security flaw shouldn't be there, and patches are release. Yes, sometimes it requires reactive actions (the virus prompts the patch). In other cases, it's proactive (Nimbda was fixed in SP2 of Win2K).
Please note: this is true of any OS, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, VMS, NetWare, Mac, etc.
I can see two reasons why someone might target MS. First is the quanity of users--more targets to hit.
Further, there is this logic:
And, perhaps to a degree they are working. I ask you: is that how you want Linux to win?
Income Redistribution: It's the American Way!
Windows/MS bad/evil/not right==Insightful commentary
Linux Bad==FUD
Also, there is a great deal hard work and dedication that goes into getting a degree, especially if it is with a good GPA at a good school. Such attributes are always desirable in an employee. There are other ways of demonstrating it, but it is a way. In contrast, those who come "two classes short", then say "I didn't see the point" might be able to succeed. But, at the end of the day, when they are passed over by someone who does have those "extra two pieces and just a piece a paper," the fact tht they didn't commit themselve to finishing a task comes to light.
I have worked in industry for almost ten years now. Though there are exceptions, education level usually implies the quality of the employee. The folks with degrees generally are able to produce better output of all sorts (programs, documentation, proposals, etc.), write more literately, and are able to adapt to a greater diversity of circumstances. Further, they are generally more presentable to bring in front of senior client folks.
One big question that kyrex presents, to me anyway, is, "where are you going?" He says that he feels his progress is hampered by lack of a degree. What is "the next step?" Perhaps he will be a project lead or a manager. In that case, he will need a lot of things such as project management, accounting and budgetting, and similar skills. I know the CS track at my school had those sorts of things built-in.
Also, in consulting, appearance can be a huge factor. While a low-to-medium level grunt coder can be any old bloke, someone in a position of responsibility (again, I'm inferring) would be responsible for the relationship with the customer. The customer needs to have faith. Twelve years experience might mean you have a diverse set of experiences that built to the role, or that you've been coding for twelve years. The college degree offers the cleint an extra warm fuzzy.
Finally, something I need to scream: A college degree is not certification!!!! Certification is like a driver's license: it demonstrates you can handle one discrete skill to a minimum level. A college degree shows you've been able to maintain a certain level of performance over a diverse set of trails, some related, some not. This diversity is what makes the difference.
BTW: The best scripting langugae I've found so far is Lua. The Palm port, Plua, is quite solid.
As big a fan as I am of the WinNT line (NT/2000/XP), I really don't care for the CE line. It tried to be too much of a desktop, at the expense of being a convient assistant to my day-to-day life (schedule, addresses, reading material for the bus, etc.). Handheld space, IMHO, really needs an OS that works to be a handheld, not a desktop-in-a-pocket. Same reason I don't think Linux is quite right for handhelds.
Palm tries to be a handheld OS. I recognize that running Perl on it might be a contradition to my "don't be a desktop" theory, but I am not looking for all fo the same power (mostly something to amuse me on the bus, or do some manipulation of records (the area code of my family changed!)), and don't want to sacrifice it's primary mission--being a PDA.
I, too am a perl fan. It does almost any sort of programming I need it to. I can do it quickly. And, I can port the script near-seamlessly accross almost every platform I deal with--except my Palm.
In fact, I have convinced my teammates to take it up as our de facto standard scripting language.
Now, if I could just port it to all platforms I deal with (hint for perl for palm)
Fewer characters=easier to encode=easier to make into electrontic media (e-mail, EDI, etc.)
More characters=more difficult to encode=better suited to paper
If you can't directly encode it, you take a picture, and push the picture around (i.e. a fax).
Hope that helps.
Back in the 80s (just before faxes became commonplace), America was on the brink of being able to go electronic--using such tools as EDI and other connection mechanisms. Since most of our business was in english (26 letters, 10 numbers, plus miscilanious punctuation)it would happen readily.
The Japanese, however, created cheaper/smaller/better fax machines than were available at the time. Makes perfect sense in that environment, as there are several orders of magnitude more characters to deal with (can't encode as easily).
The cheap and easy fax machine is shipped to the States, and were a hit. They allowed electronic-fast communication without having to significantly change how business was done (signitures could still be in ink, for instance). Further, it was, at the time, cheaper.
Had fax not come along, electronic means would have started to come in earlier. Business adoption of e-mail might have happened sooner, and some things necessary to facilitate business (that still doesn't really exist) such as digital signatures would develope more rapidly.
I submit the fax is still retarding growth. Need something signed--just fax it to me! For that reason, I don't think e-mail will ever completely displace the fax.
Of course, William Gibson wrote in the anthology _Cyberspace_ that no communication technology every dies--it merely finds niche uses.
Anytime you say that, be it for accessability components, security patches, etc, you are basically saying that the company has to make an investment in resouces (staff, contractors, etc.) who are capable of building/investigating/etc. the required components. That's easy if you are, say, McDonalds. But, if you are the small business down the street, it is a huge investment.
In contrast, the cost of accessability is spread among all of a propritary developer's customers. So, "niche" featues are more readily integtrated.
Just because you have the source doesn't mean it is practical for just anything to be added.
That is fine when you want, say, an new video driver. But, you create a catch-22: you need a development environment to create accessability options, but if you have no accessability options, you can't use the development environment.
So, if you want to take the stance of "what's the point..if [almost] noone will get any useage from [it]," you simply prove the "must scratch someone's itch" point. And, you show a weakness of Open Source.
Further, you want Linux on the desktop? Some companies will require an accessability solution.
Did I mention is was, you know, the right thing to do?
If the right tool is proprietary, then I use propritary.
Is that wrong?
"Right tool," for my purposes is the one that can accomplish the task quickly, stably, fits into the existing architecture, and can be supported (both internally (having staff trained in the technology) and externally (support from vendor or other third party)). If something does the job, but is a departure from our architecture, it may not be the right tool.
Open Source, the methodology, is just one solution to a problem. Proprietary may be another. If the Open Source doesn't suite the needs of a given application, not only would it not be chosen, it should not be chosen. That is how a marketplace works.
Besides, does it help "the movement" if an inferior solution is chosen just because it is Open Source? While it means a greater installed base, it would not put the best face forward. In effect, the rational for that is quite similar to FUD.
First, whine about it. I think your post is a good start on this one.
Second, try to decide if it is the routine of school that you are sick of, your major, or the material. You might find that you are simply burnt out of the school thing, have a few classes that aren't exciting, or just have senioritis, and want to move on wtih your life. This is OK. You may get out into The World, find a niche, and be happy again. Remember: school is not real life.
Third, if you think it really is the IT field that is going to cause you fits, try to see if you can make small moves. Perhaps you have enough credits in a minor that you can shuffle around and not extend your time in school too much. Or, find a company that has a career path that allows you to do true IT for a while, then move into a semi-related discipline (IT management, technical writing, etc.).
Fourth, if it really looks bleak, start over. Get a new major, find a "teach for America" program, join the military, or go to grad school. there are alternatives, it may, however, require a totally different plan.
Finally, if you can't start over, can't manouver, and don't think it is a temporary thing, grin and bare it. Punch your clock for eight hours a day. Do the best job you can. Take the paycheck, no matter how meager, and enjoy your life. See your family. Have cool hobbies. And accept that you are not assured you will love your job!
I think you are right: WinCE was never a contender. Palm may or may not be the future, but it does something that I don't think WinCE does, or a port of Linux would: fit the market. I don't hide I perfer NT to Linux. However, when I went out this year to get a new PDA, I didn't get a WinCE device.
Why? WinCE wasn't trying to be a handheld. It is trying to be a slimmed down version of a desktop OS. While it does enable some interesting ports (I'm still waiting for a port of Perl to the Palm (what a tounge twister!)) for a lot of PDA use (calander, to-do list, contacts, quick notes), it isn't the right model.
Palm, on the other hand, seems to do better. Perhaps Linux would with the right mix of apps, but I simply don't see it scaling that way and fitting into the day-to-day life of the average user.
Perhaps, instead, it will be a third (or, in this case, fourth) thing all together. Are there any serious PDA OSs out there aside from Palm and WinCE?
I've been using MP3 for my initial ripping. It is more of a lingua franca for players, sharing, etc.
For my portable, I use Windows Media Player. I can get better sound at lower bitrates, which is important with limited amounts of space.
Here is what you need to do:
1. Don't use e-mail: This has been discussed many times before. E-mail campaigns may look a little too contrived, and many not give the staff an idea what the real opinion is. True, a mail campaign can be "astroturf roots," but at least there is a hint of accountability in paper.
2. Stick to *Your* Members of Congress: True, others will listen politely, but, at the end of the day, they have to be reelected. If most of their district has an interest or opion that is unique to them, they respect the man who caters to that.
3. Avoid Blanket Campaigns: If it looks like you have written a 'bot to mail every member of congress, you are more likely to be disregarded.
I know others have posted this, but you have to accept that slashdot isn't like the rest of the word.
They had two or three confirmed "kills," where they were able to force a MiG into a mountain.
The most interesting implementation was using the drones to drop propaganda leaflets. I understand they were called "bullsh*t bombers" for this mission. A book I saw has the caption, "Can bombs be far behind." Thirty years later, they're getting there.
- If you are so anti-Microsoft that you feel the need to create a site against it, isn't it a touch hypocrtical to be using a Microsoft product to do that? In other words, if Microsoft is so evil, why are you using their product? (I know some may say they have no choice. Why? For instance, if it is "your company's toolset," they probably don't want you creating an anti-anything site on thier dime)
- Can anyone really blame them if they don't want to have their own tools used against them. It's like a wife not having to testify against her husband. Or creating a stipped down version of a a fighter for export (a Carter administration idea that didn't work out).
They aren't saying you can't create an anti-Microsoft site, or that they can't exist at all. They are simply saying that their tools can't be used for it. What's the problem with that?Put another way: what if I created an anti-Linux site using the Tux image? Right now I'm not prohibited from using it, but I'm sure that would upset a lot of the people who post here. Now, take it to the next step: I develop the site on a Linux system, hosting it on a Linux server.