Columnists who are groping for a topic for the weekly grind are getting way too much mileage out of slamming Linux one week, then writing about getting flamed for what they said the next. There is nothing a "journalist" loves more than the feeling they are defending free speech. They can write a lazy column requiring no research or work at all on their part, then get all indignant and huffy about the flaming. It is really getting boring. The splenetic flaming by Linux users is getting cliched and boring. Especially when it is so obvious that that is exactly what the writer of the column wanted!
Could this guy's ego be any bigger? It looks to me like he is loving this whole thing for all of the press it is creating for him. I bet he'll use the negative comments as proof to corporate clients that he must be good - otherwise why would all these scary computer freaks hate him so much? And he'll get away with it . . .
I'm sure that the US government will say that Linux is more than 10% American, regardless of whether it is or not - their position on crypto makes it clear that logic has nothing to do with these policies. I would like to say that you should just tell them to go screw themselves and go for it, but from a business standpoint that might not be so wise. On the other hand, if you tell them where they can download it, and only make suggestions on which distro to get, without actually selling it to them or exporting it yourselves, I don't see how you could get nailed. Be sure that the US government will try to figure out a way to nail you anyway - they REALLY hate the Iranians!
Couldn't have been the same show, then - the show was an episode of "Modern Marvels" or something like that. This show only talked about breaking code for about 5 minutes, mainly to mention how Colossus was arguably the first computer, and they didn't give the names of any of the people who worked on it.
I was watching a show on the History Channel last night about the history of the computer, and not a single mention of Turing was made in the entire hour. This bothers me greatly. That a man who contributed so much should be written out of the history of the field is a crime. As for a statue, though - what a total waste of money! Statues of important people are so 19th century. The way to remember people is through the history books, not through big hunks of metal.
Filtering software always makes me worry I might be missing something interesting. I remember when my company first installed Outlook98. The spam and porn email filters were turned on by default. I got a call from my dad, who was wondering why I hadn't responded to his email. It turns out that because my dad tends to be rather profane in his writing style, the software thought his email was porn related and deleted it automatically! This makes me worry about the NetNanny type filters, since someone else is deciding what I see and what I don't, and that is unacceptable. If, however - as is the situation on Slashdot - I get to decide who I see and who I don't, that is in my view entirely different. I give people lots of chances, but if I feel that they consistently waste my time and make it more difficult for me to get to the information I am interested in, then why shouldn't I filter them out? They have only their own lack of discipline and civility to blame. And if some people who don't like to read opinions that disagree with theirs filter them out, well, isn't that the same thing as ignoring the message, which was Jon's suggestion?
Every time someone strikes a blow like this against the "national security apparatus" we should all cheer. And that this is GPL'd software developed in a foreign country makes this news about as good as it gets. Frankly I'm a hell of a lot more afraid of the FBI than of any potential terrorist threat from encryption! You know, I am wondering if we are going to start seeing some official interference in the OSS movement - this article mentioned that VPN software can cost a ton of money - so this OSS project could to really eat into revenue for quite a few firms. The financial community makes such a big deal about high tech being a huge industry - what happens when OSS does everything you need, and there isn't any way to make money on big-volume proprietary software anymore? I for one think it would rock, but I imagine big-money disagrees, and we all know the golden rule . . .
I guess Linux is getting widespread enough to begin having the eternal systems problems: if the project management is incompetent, the actual system involved is irrelevant - it WILL be screwed up. And if they're expecting hotel managers to be their sysadmins, it could get really ugly. I think this is due to the high-cost of good technical help - many businesspeople just don't want to pay what it takes to get a system done right. They can't seem to realize that they either pay now, or pay a hell of a lot more later.
I am puzzled by the number of times I have read articles supposedly written by "techies" who describe all the problems they have installing Linux. I knew next to nothing about Linux the first time I installed it (and on a piece of junk computer, to boot), let alone a CompSci degree, and I didn't have any trouble at all (this was Red Hat 5.0). As for the other article, well, my wife used to to tech support for a graphic design shop, and those people would complain about how hard Macs were to use! There are always going to be those people who just can't understand technology of any kind, and the more complex it is, the more panicky they get, regardless of the reality of the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Columnists who are groping for a topic for the weekly grind are getting way too much mileage out of slamming Linux one week, then writing about getting flamed for what they said the next. There is nothing a "journalist" loves more than the feeling they are defending free speech. They can write a lazy column requiring no research or work at all on their part, then get all indignant and huffy about the flaming. It is really getting boring. The splenetic flaming by Linux users is getting cliched and boring. Especially when it is so obvious that that is exactly what the writer of the column wanted!
Could this guy's ego be any bigger? It looks to me like he is loving this whole thing for all of the press it is creating for him. I bet he'll use the negative comments as proof to corporate clients that he must be good - otherwise why would all these scary computer freaks hate him so much? And he'll get away with it . . .
I'm sure that the US government will say that Linux is more than 10% American, regardless of whether it is or not - their position on crypto makes it clear that logic has nothing to do with these policies. I would like to say that you should just tell them to go screw themselves and go for it, but from a business standpoint that might not be so wise. On the other hand, if you tell them where they can download it, and only make suggestions on which distro to get, without actually selling it to them or exporting it yourselves, I don't see how you could get nailed. Be sure that the US government will try to figure out a way to nail you anyway - they REALLY hate the Iranians!
Couldn't have been the same show, then - the show was an episode of "Modern Marvels" or something like that. This show only talked about breaking code for about 5 minutes, mainly to mention how Colossus was arguably the first computer, and they didn't give the names of any of the people who worked on it.
I was watching a show on the History Channel last night about the history of the computer, and not a single mention of Turing was made in the entire hour. This bothers me greatly. That a man who contributed so much should be written out of the history of the field is a crime. As for a statue, though - what a total waste of money! Statues of important people are so 19th century. The way to remember people is through the history books, not through big hunks of metal.
Filtering software always makes me worry I might be missing something interesting. I remember when my company first installed Outlook98. The spam and porn email filters were turned on by default. I got a call from my dad, who was wondering why I hadn't responded to his email. It turns out that because my dad tends to be rather profane in his writing style, the software thought his email was porn related and deleted it automatically! This makes me worry about the NetNanny type filters, since someone else is deciding what I see and what I don't, and that is unacceptable. If, however - as is the situation on Slashdot - I get to decide who I see and who I don't, that is in my view entirely different. I give people lots of chances, but if I feel that they consistently waste my time and make it more difficult for me to get to the information I am interested in, then why shouldn't I filter them out? They have only their own lack of discipline and civility to blame. And if some people who don't like to read opinions that disagree with theirs filter them out, well, isn't that the same thing as ignoring the message, which was Jon's suggestion?
Every time someone strikes a blow like this against the "national security apparatus" we should all cheer. And that this is GPL'd software developed in a foreign country makes this news about as good as it gets. Frankly I'm a hell of a lot more afraid of the FBI than of any potential terrorist threat from encryption! You know, I am wondering if we are going to start seeing some official interference in the OSS movement - this article mentioned that VPN software can cost a ton of money - so this OSS project could to really eat into revenue for quite a few firms. The financial community makes such a big deal about high tech being a huge industry - what happens when OSS does everything you need, and there isn't any way to make money on big-volume proprietary software anymore? I for one think it would rock, but I imagine big-money disagrees, and we all know the golden rule . . .
I guess Linux is getting widespread enough to begin having the eternal systems problems: if the project management is incompetent, the actual system involved is irrelevant - it WILL be screwed up. And if they're expecting hotel managers to be their sysadmins, it could get really ugly. I think this is due to the high-cost of good technical help - many businesspeople just don't want to pay what it takes to get a system done right. They can't seem to realize that they either pay now, or pay a hell of a lot more later.
I am puzzled by the number of times I have read articles supposedly written by "techies" who describe all the problems they have installing Linux. I knew next to nothing about Linux the first time I installed it (and on a piece of junk computer, to boot), let alone a CompSci degree, and I didn't have any trouble at all (this was Red Hat 5.0). As for the other article, well, my wife used to to tech support for a graphic design shop, and those people would complain about how hard Macs were to use! There are always going to be those people who just can't understand technology of any kind, and the more complex it is, the more panicky they get, regardless of the reality of the situation.