When the movie Dogma came out, Christian fundamentalists rallied to protest it. The campaign involved hate-mail and picket-lines. Where there was not sufficient local support, they bussed in people. Oddly enough, out of curiosity, Smith himself showed up and became a part of the protest at his local theatre.
Sure - there are just as many issues with Christians. But you don't see an international campaign of violent protest from them.
Of course, it's not that Christians won't get violent. The abortion issue has shown that... in spades. But as deplorable as bombings and murders are... they're not quite the same league.
Stop using torture and avoid collateral damage in foreign countries. Demand the same things from both friends and foes (like, why let Israel have illegal nuclear weapons but bash Iran wich has none nor the ability to develop them).
I can agree on the issue of torture. There's a fundamental human rights issue here that we (the US) are wont to trot out when convenient. We need to be sure it can't be used against us. But even more... its the right thing to do and, for the most part, reflective of our society.
The collateral damage issue is interesting. It seems to me that US forces already tries to avoid collateral damage. It sounds more like you're calling for elimination of collateral damage - and that's a fantasy. You might also note that US forces tends to avoid friendly fire too. Even so, it still happens. Collateral damage is, indeed, tragic. It provides no real military advantage. And it's a gold mine for anti-US propaganda. I'm curious as to why you seem to think US forces do not attempt avoiding the situation.
And, finally, Iran. Sure - they don't have weapons nor at this point the ability to produce them. But you're being willfully ignorant if you believe that they do not have the desire to build them. And that's the point - limiting that ability. Does Isreal have nukes? Yes. So does India. So does Pakistan. But when countries like Iran talk about Isreal being wiped off the face of the earth, and with a decided lack of simular dogma from Isreal... you'll have to forgive the US for not being so concerned with Isreal's nukes. Pakistan and India are more dangerous simply due to their history of rattling sabres at each other - though that seems to have settled down. The issue is not who HAS nukes, but who is most likely to use them.
I don't know this is true - but I could see how not imaging the drive costs. The OEM has a production process to follow. Deviations could potentially cost since each deviation is a different step with different logistics, production paths, parts, etc. involved. Not that it can't be done - Dell has made a business out of it. But note that even Dell charges for a deviation in OS.
Seeing the things coming out of 37Signals and other likeminded businesses that allow you to store and edit information online from anywhere, it really seems like this is the way we're headed. The only thing is, will we find some way to keep our information more secure, or will the average joe just stop caring?
The average Joe thinks the "From" field in their email is authoritive.
There will certainly be remote data housing services that will be secure. But keep in mind nobody is questioning Google's security here. Even the most secure provider will still have to figure out how they will handle a subpoena. And while encryption seems to be the obvious answer, think on how many people you know who are actively able to send and receive encrypted email (nevermind whether encryption keys will actually protect you against a subpoena).
Isn't it cute how Microsoft fanboys get all twisted when you just mention Google?:P
Please feel free to explain to me how gmail is bad and hotmail is not. And while you're at it, does your "other than original owner" comment mean to imply random people? If so, I'd like to know how you think this happens. If instead you are noting that moving personal data to servers owned and controlled by others might be a bad idea... wasn't that the point of this article? And with that criticism in mind, where is this double standard you mention?
You wouldn't want an arbitrary commercial company -- a publicly-traded corporation, no less -- having access to your health records, or your business records, just because that corporation and some uninvolved, third-party academics said it was "for the public good."
When I publish my health and business records, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
Fair use, my ass. The only reason Google wants this program to be opt-out is because that makes it better for Google. Google plans to use the fact that it has access to all this material as a way to market Google's products and services. If it only has a partial database, those products and services instantly become less valuable. But I ask again, why should a publishing company be made to market Google's products and services, for no benefit to the publishing company?
Apparently, you don't know Fair Use from your ass. Fair Use does not require either the author's nor the publisher's permission. And Fair Use does not preclude profit.
I repeat: Fair use, my ass. "Public commons," my ass! This isn't "public." This isn't "us." This is Google and Google alone. This isn't for the posterity of society. It's for Google's posterity, and longterm financial gain, at the expense of other businesses.
Furthermore, Fair Use applies just to Google just as it applies to you or me. Or, at least, it should. The difference is that Google can probably afford to take a Fair Use case to court - I doubt I could fund such a venture no matter how strong my case appears.
Well... if _I_ were to mod my own post, I would have used "Funny". It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But it does borrow from claims made by the Music Industry... some of which have been, at the least, implied if not echoed by book publishers in the past.
Indeed! But let us not stop at public libraries. Used bookstores are actually reselling copies of books! These books are the property of the publishers, right? Surely authors are being robed of income by these sales - none of which include payment to the author or, more importantly, the publishers.
I can understand why this action may not have much appeal. After all, public libraries and used bookstores hardly have Google-sized wallets. But then... Amazon and eBay sell used books too.
Google has no right to index all the books it wants and throw them online for anyone to browse. They are the property of the rightful owner, not Google.
Copyright is not property. The books are the property of whoever owns the individual books. The right to copy those books are something entirely different.
Their policy of having publishers request to not have their books scanned would be similar to the government forcing one to request not to have their phone tapped. Some fundamental rights should not be assumed to be given up until they actually are, and intellectual property is one of them.
No - privacy concerns and Governmental checks-and-balance have nothing to do with this issue; not even remotely. The interesting thing here is while Copyright is very useful, it also takes AWAY the public's rights. This is why people are so concerned about Copyright being truely limited. And this is also why there exists Fair Use within the very laws that establish Copyright. It might also be worth stressing that while much of our law is based on property, Copyright is not property - even with the use of snazy memes like "intelectual property".
No matter how much they redact irrelavent text or try to keep users from gaining full access to the book, someone will. The Slashdot community, of all, should recognize this. Time and time again encryption schemes are hacked (DeCSS being the simplest example to point to).
Indeed. The easy access you're describing is called... a book. The access is already there in the form of book stores, public libraries, and personal libraries. If keeping something from being copied is your concern, don't publish.
After all, how does sexuality come into play on WoW? This shouldn't even be an issue and for those who need a MMORPG as an outlet for sexual expression there isn't much to be said in their favor.
Have you ever seen a female Night Elf dance (or many other races for that matter)? Sexuality is coded in to the game. And, of course, given the nature of the average audience... players will push what can be done with those animations.
But it doesn't have to be so purile. Ever hear of in-game weddings? Any time RP-oriented players get together, a wedding is bound to happen and WoW is no exception. Now while marriage isn't all about sex, sexuality is certainly a part of it. And in fact, the whole recent hullabaloo seems to have stemmed from a in-game same-sex marriage.
Sexuality is a part of us - it's hard-coded in to our being. It is little wonder that in any environment with some degree of freedom, sexuality surfaces. And that's even in environments that don't code it in - unlike WoW.
One last point - I do tend to agree to a certain extent. I'm not very interested in sexuality in game. Some joker with a half-naked dancing Night Elf on a mailbox is a sure sight of a immature player. And I've never felt any inclination to be part of an in-game wedding (or get involved with anyone's romantic tryst RP). But at the same time, I do understand that some players will be inclined to do these things even if I choose not to play along.
You say flash based ads are evil, sure, but just keep in mind that the site you're on now depends on those ads - with even less strict guidelines than Google has in place - to keep operating.
Really? I block Flash ads. Yet I still see plenty of ads on Slashdot that I do not block. It would seem that Slashdot does fairly well without Flash.
These restrictions will likely drive those manufacturers to alternate sources of software, or limit them to only GPL v2 versions of the code.
Or manufacturers who have already reaped the benefits of adopting Linux will levy requirements to their suppliers that forbid "trusted" features in their hardware. This in turn will ensure that there is always a product line available to not only other Corporate interestes (who tend to drive these markets), but hobbiests and hackers... some of who may even be busy working on the Next Big Thing.
Network bandwidth isn't quite as homogenous as water is, but then, some people are willing to pay a lot for bottled water in a store, too, so it seems the useage doesn't have to be exact.
The bottled water example is interesting. I buy bottled water because the quality of the tap water in my house isn't quite the same. So for simple drinking water, I prefer the bottled stuff. But I do have access to reliable, potable water none the less. I have access to numerous sources (and brands) of water. I can interchange tap for bottled water.
I have also lived in environments where the tap water is not drinkable. Sure - you can wash in it. But even brushing your teeth with the stuff is a risk. There, bottled water is a necessity. Is water still a commodity in that environment?
The issue seems to be one of access. I agree - "a 1Mbs connection via cable is pretty much the same as getting a 1Mbs connection from DSL." The issue I see is when you can only get a link from one source and that source has decided to start squeezing you for additional fees.
True. I don't see any problem with Internet providers offerring tiered services so long as you're talking about bandwidth as a commodity, which is specificly a product like salt or water which is "homogenous" and freely interchangable.
That's also assuming you can get your bandwidth from different providers. That's not always true.
For example, I'm stuck. If I want broadband there's one provider - my local cable provider. The local telco doesn't offer *DSL because my neighborhood is MUXed. And that's not likely to change. The local telco had gear in their CO for years to support *DSL... but it took a CLEC to beat them in to making the equipment available (and the CLEC was the only DSL provider for a couple years even then).
This is probably not what you meant when referring to bandwidth as a commodity. However, if you're going to throw the term out, best to keep it as close to its meaning as possible.
It's cute you use a term like "slashbot" when you yourself are so easily confused. But hey - what should one expect from someone who uses such a term anyway?
The problem seems to be that you are confused from the get-go:
DOJ busts ring of people conspiring to infringe on copyrights and sell illegal copies of work
What are they thinking?!? This is as petty as a crime gets! Don't they have anything better to do?
The problem here is that these guys were NOT selling illegal copies. Go back to the few stories where Feds actually bust gen-u-ine counterfeit / piracy rings. Much fewer sympathetic replies.
DOJ busts spammers for conspiring to find people's email addresses and send email to them
ROCK ON!!! Hang the motherfuckers! Burn them at the stake! It's too bad we can't bust them all!
Wait - you mean network geeks would be upset with asshats that abuse other people's bandwidth to make one of the best communication systems ever developed near useless?! I'm shocked. You also might note that these asshats would go away if profit was not a motive.
Corporation infringes on copyright, redistributes modified GPL'ed work without source
Assholes! Somebody take them to court! Sue them for every cent they're worth!
Oh no! How dare people demand that the very laws that incure hefty penalties on individuals should also be upheld against corporate interests - who again, are making money with their actions. You might also note here that the license being violated by individuals tends to limit distribution while the GPL intends to expand distribution.
If you want to stress that these folks broke the law - fine. If you want to make a point of why the law is good - fine. But please spare us from the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer routine.
The real problem is that vast numbers of people don't think twice about piracy. If you don't like it, try solving that problem instead of picking at the band-aid.
Wait. I'm a paying customer. So I need to have MY system hosed so the industry can solve THEIR problem?
Allow me to make a modest proposal. Get the software from an illicit source that's provided the value-added service of removing such shennanigans. It would be fair to also purchase the software off the shelf - even if it remains shrink-wrapped. But I won't be suprised if, after having invested the effort in aquiring said software through illicit sources, an individual wouldn't be keen to also invest money in a purchase. We'll see how those 800 break-even purchases go.
Granted - there's always the issue of illicit copies containing malware. The difference, it seems, is the malware that comes off the shelf doesn't get reported.
I understand that this does little to allay the fears of the game industry. But you'll have to forgive me for being somewhat confrontational when the "band-aid" the industry picks doesn't actually solve anything, and harms the very individuals that support them.
They use the Blackberrys to communicate moreso than email itself, and if they shut off their BB for more than an hour or so, people start wondering where they went.
Gone is the day where our politians know nothing about technology. They may not understand DRM or security or IP or TLDs like we do, but they certainly are "in the loop" when it comes to communicating and collaborating using tech.
So explain to me where the leap happens from using a Blackberry to organizing edits on Wikipedia. As you yourself pointed out, using a particular piece of consumer electronics does not make one knowledgable about more involved aspects of technology. Even if said consumer electronics is dependant on technology easily affected by these more involved issues.
Ah, but I thought our company motto was "Do No Evil", not "Do No Evil So Long As It Doesnt Affect Our Pocketbook"
Fair enough point.
... the fact of the matter is we should be concerned that Google has logs going back that far
Wait - what's that got to do with anything? Did Google turn records over to China? My understanding is that the issue with China and Google was over censorship. Granted - it's not much of a leap to passing on records. But there is no indication such activity is happening, is there?
a company that has a ticker in its corporate headquarters showing what people are currently searching for online.
Do you claim that a ticker is evil?
Use Google if you want, but they are far from the angel of justice people portray them to be.
Google not angelic? I suppose we'll refrain from putting Google up for sainthood. Though it might be worth noting that while not angelic, Google is also not the demon some of its critics would like to make them seem.
It might also be worth pointing out that the question you asked was the difference between the Chinese Government and US Government events. To put it more plainly - the difference is that China and the US ARE, in fact, different. And the events themselves were different.
They didn't make a stand in Beijing. Why do you think they made a stand here?
OK - I'll play Devil's advocate.
Standing up for ideals with the Chinese Government would mean not operating in China. Standing up for ideals with the US Government did not mean no longer operating in the US.
To be sure - that seems to indicate that ideals do not always lead business decissions. Although with China, there seems to be an ongoing theory that affecting change in China is best done by becoming valuable to China. The cynical would rightly point out that the biggest driver to this is greed - on both the Capitalist and Communist sides.
I've worked in mission control at JPL for several years and I've never seen Linux used as a Desktop OS by more people than I can count on one hand. In fact JPL has a contract with Lockheed Martin to supply Desktop computers that makes it very hard to run anything other than Windows or MacOS.
It might be worth pointing out here that NASA as an agency is extreemly schizophrenic. Finding one group within NASA that follows any particular operating procedure or policy does not mean that all groups and organizations within the entire Agency also does the same. In fact, it is not uncommon to find different groups with conflicting policies. Granted - there ARE Agency policies that are (more or less) followed everywhere. But those are much fewer and farther between than outsiders might think.
Incidently, it's hard to have a non-Windows "desktop" within many NASA environments. Business automation infrastructure is very rarely built with anything but Windows in mind. Although I can think of a couple recent projects where MacOS and Linux were mentioned as a consideration, if not exactly a concern. So things may be changing.
Of course it is! Remember the fiasco any time Microsoft try bundling anything useful with Windows? It ends up in an anti-trust trial! Of COURSE Microsoft aren't going to bundle anything useful with Windows any more.
I'd be much more willing to go with this argument if Windows came bundled with Word.
1998 was when I started using Linux as a desktop - both for work and home. My installs were Debian. My favored windows manager was WindowMaker. The desktop was snappy and package management was a breeze compared to RedHat.
Before that, my first exposure to Linux was Slackware on a 486DX2-66. No XWindows. It was my home network gateway and performed fairly admirably for many years until I had enough waterfalled desktop kit that upgrading simply made sense (that - and fun stuff like snort requires a bit more oomph).
Having said that - I'm not so sure I'd want to reach back much further. A friend of mine introduced me to Linux around '96 and that was slackware with Enlightenment as a window manager. It was flashy. It looked neat. But it was a pain to deal with. So I didn't really get in to it until a couple years later.
Slashdot Mirror
When the movie Dogma came out, Christian fundamentalists rallied to protest it. The campaign involved hate-mail and picket-lines. Where there was not sufficient local support, they bussed in people. Oddly enough, out of curiosity, Smith himself showed up and became a part of the protest at his local theatre.
Sure - there are just as many issues with Christians. But you don't see an international campaign of violent protest from them.
Of course, it's not that Christians won't get violent. The abortion issue has shown that... in spades. But as deplorable as bombings and murders are... they're not quite the same league.
I can agree on the issue of torture. There's a fundamental human rights issue here that we (the US) are wont to trot out when convenient. We need to be sure it can't be used against us. But even more... its the right thing to do and, for the most part, reflective of our society.
The collateral damage issue is interesting. It seems to me that US forces already tries to avoid collateral damage. It sounds more like you're calling for elimination of collateral damage - and that's a fantasy. You might also note that US forces tends to avoid friendly fire too. Even so, it still happens. Collateral damage is, indeed, tragic. It provides no real military advantage. And it's a gold mine for anti-US propaganda. I'm curious as to why you seem to think US forces do not attempt avoiding the situation.
And, finally, Iran. Sure - they don't have weapons nor at this point the ability to produce them. But you're being willfully ignorant if you believe that they do not have the desire to build them. And that's the point - limiting that ability. Does Isreal have nukes? Yes. So does India. So does Pakistan. But when countries like Iran talk about Isreal being wiped off the face of the earth, and with a decided lack of simular dogma from Isreal... you'll have to forgive the US for not being so concerned with Isreal's nukes. Pakistan and India are more dangerous simply due to their history of rattling sabres at each other - though that seems to have settled down. The issue is not who HAS nukes, but who is most likely to use them.
I don't know this is true - but I could see how not imaging the drive costs. The OEM has a production process to follow. Deviations could potentially cost since each deviation is a different step with different logistics, production paths, parts, etc. involved. Not that it can't be done - Dell has made a business out of it. But note that even Dell charges for a deviation in OS.
The average Joe thinks the "From" field in their email is authoritive.
There will certainly be remote data housing services that will be secure. But keep in mind nobody is questioning Google's security here. Even the most secure provider will still have to figure out how they will handle a subpoena. And while encryption seems to be the obvious answer, think on how many people you know who are actively able to send and receive encrypted email (nevermind whether encryption keys will actually protect you against a subpoena).
Isn't it cute how Microsoft fanboys get all twisted when you just mention Google? :P
Please feel free to explain to me how gmail is bad and hotmail is not. And while you're at it, does your "other than original owner" comment mean to imply random people? If so, I'd like to know how you think this happens. If instead you are noting that moving personal data to servers owned and controlled by others might be a bad idea... wasn't that the point of this article? And with that criticism in mind, where is this double standard you mention?
The EFF has a good point. You apparently don't.
Thanks for the insight. I had heard of publishing industry members making noise along these lines... I was naively assuming this was a vocal minority.
When I publish my health and business records, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
Apparently, you don't know Fair Use from your ass. Fair Use does not require either the author's nor the publisher's permission. And Fair Use does not preclude profit.
Furthermore, Fair Use applies just to Google just as it applies to you or me. Or, at least, it should. The difference is that Google can probably afford to take a Fair Use case to court - I doubt I could fund such a venture no matter how strong my case appears.
Well... if _I_ were to mod my own post, I would have used "Funny". It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But it does borrow from claims made by the Music Industry... some of which have been, at the least, implied if not echoed by book publishers in the past.
Indeed! But let us not stop at public libraries. Used bookstores are actually reselling copies of books! These books are the property of the publishers, right? Surely authors are being robed of income by these sales - none of which include payment to the author or, more importantly, the publishers.
I can understand why this action may not have much appeal. After all, public libraries and used bookstores hardly have Google-sized wallets. But then... Amazon and eBay sell used books too.
Copyright is not property. The books are the property of whoever owns the individual books. The right to copy those books are something entirely different.
No - privacy concerns and Governmental checks-and-balance have nothing to do with this issue; not even remotely. The interesting thing here is while Copyright is very useful, it also takes AWAY the public's rights. This is why people are so concerned about Copyright being truely limited. And this is also why there exists Fair Use within the very laws that establish Copyright. It might also be worth stressing that while much of our law is based on property, Copyright is not property - even with the use of snazy memes like "intelectual property".
Indeed. The easy access you're describing is called... a book. The access is already there in the form of book stores, public libraries, and personal libraries. If keeping something from being copied is your concern, don't publish.
In asking such a question, sir, it would seem that your parents never explained to you the facts of life.
Have you ever seen a female Night Elf dance (or many other races for that matter)? Sexuality is coded in to the game. And, of course, given the nature of the average audience... players will push what can be done with those animations.
But it doesn't have to be so purile. Ever hear of in-game weddings? Any time RP-oriented players get together, a wedding is bound to happen and WoW is no exception. Now while marriage isn't all about sex, sexuality is certainly a part of it. And in fact, the whole recent hullabaloo seems to have stemmed from a in-game same-sex marriage.
Sexuality is a part of us - it's hard-coded in to our being. It is little wonder that in any environment with some degree of freedom, sexuality surfaces. And that's even in environments that don't code it in - unlike WoW.
One last point - I do tend to agree to a certain extent. I'm not very interested in sexuality in game. Some joker with a half-naked dancing Night Elf on a mailbox is a sure sight of a immature player. And I've never felt any inclination to be part of an in-game wedding (or get involved with anyone's romantic tryst RP). But at the same time, I do understand that some players will be inclined to do these things even if I choose not to play along.
Really? I block Flash ads. Yet I still see plenty of ads on Slashdot that I do not block. It would seem that Slashdot does fairly well without Flash.
Or manufacturers who have already reaped the benefits of adopting Linux will levy requirements to their suppliers that forbid "trusted" features in their hardware. This in turn will ensure that there is always a product line available to not only other Corporate interestes (who tend to drive these markets), but hobbiests and hackers... some of who may even be busy working on the Next Big Thing.
The bottled water example is interesting. I buy bottled water because the quality of the tap water in my house isn't quite the same. So for simple drinking water, I prefer the bottled stuff. But I do have access to reliable, potable water none the less. I have access to numerous sources (and brands) of water. I can interchange tap for bottled water.
I have also lived in environments where the tap water is not drinkable. Sure - you can wash in it. But even brushing your teeth with the stuff is a risk. There, bottled water is a necessity. Is water still a commodity in that environment?
The issue seems to be one of access. I agree - "a 1Mbs connection via cable is pretty much the same as getting a 1Mbs connection from DSL." The issue I see is when you can only get a link from one source and that source has decided to start squeezing you for additional fees.
That's also assuming you can get your bandwidth from different providers. That's not always true.
For example, I'm stuck. If I want broadband there's one provider - my local cable provider. The local telco doesn't offer *DSL because my neighborhood is MUXed. And that's not likely to change. The local telco had gear in their CO for years to support *DSL... but it took a CLEC to beat them in to making the equipment available (and the CLEC was the only DSL provider for a couple years even then).
This is probably not what you meant when referring to bandwidth as a commodity. However, if you're going to throw the term out, best to keep it as close to its meaning as possible.
The problem seems to be that you are confused from the get-go:
The problem here is that these guys were NOT selling illegal copies. Go back to the few stories where Feds actually bust gen-u-ine counterfeit / piracy rings. Much fewer sympathetic replies.
Wait - you mean network geeks would be upset with asshats that abuse other people's bandwidth to make one of the best communication systems ever developed near useless?! I'm shocked. You also might note that these asshats would go away if profit was not a motive.
Oh no! How dare people demand that the very laws that incure hefty penalties on individuals should also be upheld against corporate interests - who again, are making money with their actions. You might also note here that the license being violated by individuals tends to limit distribution while the GPL intends to expand distribution.
If you want to stress that these folks broke the law - fine. If you want to make a point of why the law is good - fine. But please spare us from the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer routine.
Wait. I'm a paying customer. So I need to have MY system hosed so the industry can solve THEIR problem?
Allow me to make a modest proposal. Get the software from an illicit source that's provided the value-added service of removing such shennanigans. It would be fair to also purchase the software off the shelf - even if it remains shrink-wrapped. But I won't be suprised if, after having invested the effort in aquiring said software through illicit sources, an individual wouldn't be keen to also invest money in a purchase. We'll see how those 800 break-even purchases go.
Granted - there's always the issue of illicit copies containing malware. The difference, it seems, is the malware that comes off the shelf doesn't get reported.
I understand that this does little to allay the fears of the game industry. But you'll have to forgive me for being somewhat confrontational when the "band-aid" the industry picks doesn't actually solve anything, and harms the very individuals that support them.
So explain to me where the leap happens from using a Blackberry to organizing edits on Wikipedia. As you yourself pointed out, using a particular piece of consumer electronics does not make one knowledgable about more involved aspects of technology. Even if said consumer electronics is dependant on technology easily affected by these more involved issues.
The resolution sucks and it creates too many artifacts.
Fair enough point.
Wait - what's that got to do with anything? Did Google turn records over to China? My understanding is that the issue with China and Google was over censorship. Granted - it's not much of a leap to passing on records. But there is no indication such activity is happening, is there?
Do you claim that a ticker is evil?
Google not angelic? I suppose we'll refrain from putting Google up for sainthood. Though it might be worth noting that while not angelic, Google is also not the demon some of its critics would like to make them seem.
It might also be worth pointing out that the question you asked was the difference between the Chinese Government and US Government events. To put it more plainly - the difference is that China and the US ARE, in fact, different. And the events themselves were different.
OK - I'll play Devil's advocate.
Standing up for ideals with the Chinese Government would mean not operating in China. Standing up for ideals with the US Government did not mean no longer operating in the US.
To be sure - that seems to indicate that ideals do not always lead business decissions. Although with China, there seems to be an ongoing theory that affecting change in China is best done by becoming valuable to China. The cynical would rightly point out that the biggest driver to this is greed - on both the Capitalist and Communist sides.
It might be worth pointing out here that NASA as an agency is extreemly schizophrenic. Finding one group within NASA that follows any particular operating procedure or policy does not mean that all groups and organizations within the entire Agency also does the same. In fact, it is not uncommon to find different groups with conflicting policies. Granted - there ARE Agency policies that are (more or less) followed everywhere. But those are much fewer and farther between than outsiders might think.
Incidently, it's hard to have a non-Windows "desktop" within many NASA environments. Business automation infrastructure is very rarely built with anything but Windows in mind. Although I can think of a couple recent projects where MacOS and Linux were mentioned as a consideration, if not exactly a concern. So things may be changing.
I'd be much more willing to go with this argument if Windows came bundled with Word.
1998 was when I started using Linux as a desktop - both for work and home. My installs were Debian. My favored windows manager was WindowMaker. The desktop was snappy and package management was a breeze compared to RedHat.
Before that, my first exposure to Linux was Slackware on a 486DX2-66. No XWindows. It was my home network gateway and performed fairly admirably for many years until I had enough waterfalled desktop kit that upgrading simply made sense (that - and fun stuff like snort requires a bit more oomph).
Having said that - I'm not so sure I'd want to reach back much further. A friend of mine introduced me to Linux around '96 and that was slackware with Enlightenment as a window manager. It was flashy. It looked neat. But it was a pain to deal with. So I didn't really get in to it until a couple years later.