IMHO, they did the right thing. One of openSUSE's goals is to be completely open source software (hence the 'open' in 'openSUSE'). Even if they may have the right to use them due to the MS/Novell patent deal, they do not want the distro encumbered with non-OSS software in the default install. Fedora 7 also disables this feature.
If you want a distro protected (encumbered) by MS patents, buy SUSE Enterprise.
How is poor, beleaguered Microsoft, with their paltry billions of dollars, supposed to come up with the resources to support ODF? IBM is obviously using their vast resources and clout in the industry to advance their own agenda at the expense of smaller, less powerful companies.
I can't even believe how out of touch they are with reality. The only thing can-spam really did was legitimize the spammer business. I worked for a company (past tense thankfully) that was "can-spam compliant". Before can-spam, everyone there was afraid of getting sued over spam. After can-spam, with it's giant loopholes and vague "compliance" language, everyone there was relieved because it provided protection if they became "compliant." A company can become can-spam compliant without even pretending to stop spamming people.
Did it even marginally slow down the amount of spam they were sending? No. In fact, it increased.
The spam problem is a dicey one, but ultimately it really will have to be a technical solution, with whatever unfortunate consequences following that.
I would agree with the other posters about it being the protocol designer's fault, not NAT. Contrast the SIP protocol with the IAX (Inter-Asterisk eXchange) protocol. Not only does it support NAT without any problems, it has a host of other features that make it superior to the SIP protocol in almost every way. Just take a look at http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-IAX+versus+SIP for a point-by-point comparison.
For whatever reason, IPv6 is still a long ways off from being universally adopted. Whether or not people like NAT, it is a useful tool, heavily deployed, and an inescapable reality. New protocols should be designed to work with it.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, they did the right thing. One of openSUSE's goals is to be completely open source software (hence the 'open' in 'openSUSE'). Even if they may have the right to use them due to the MS/Novell patent deal, they do not want the distro encumbered with non-OSS software in the default install. Fedora 7 also disables this feature.
If you want a distro protected (encumbered) by MS patents, buy SUSE Enterprise.
How is poor, beleaguered Microsoft, with their paltry billions of dollars, supposed to come up with the resources to support ODF? IBM is obviously using their vast resources and clout in the industry to advance their own agenda at the expense of smaller, less powerful companies.
Hey, wait a minute...
A common rough metric is that 3 average mature trees use 1 ton of carbon per year.
So, to remove 1 billion tons per year, simply plant 3 billion trees.
Maybe the company will provide free tanks of mermaids to go along with the free energy.
I can't even believe how out of touch they are with reality. The only thing can-spam really did was legitimize the spammer business. I worked for a company (past tense thankfully) that was "can-spam compliant". Before can-spam, everyone there was afraid of getting sued over spam. After can-spam, with it's giant loopholes and vague "compliance" language, everyone there was relieved because it provided protection if they became "compliant." A company can become can-spam compliant without even pretending to stop spamming people.
Did it even marginally slow down the amount of spam they were sending? No. In fact, it increased.
The spam problem is a dicey one, but ultimately it really will have to be a technical solution, with whatever unfortunate consequences following that.
I would agree with the other posters about it being the protocol designer's fault, not NAT. Contrast the SIP protocol with the IAX (Inter-Asterisk eXchange) protocol. Not only does it support NAT without any problems, it has a host of other features that make it superior to the SIP protocol in almost every way. Just take a look at http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-IAX+versus+SIP for a point-by-point comparison.
For whatever reason, IPv6 is still a long ways off from being universally adopted. Whether or not people like NAT, it is a useful tool, heavily deployed, and an inescapable reality. New protocols should be designed to work with it.