No one cares if you remote control it for administrative purposes.
Really? Does the license make an exception for "administrative purposes"? The quoted portion in the article certainly doesn't point to one.
It might shock you and other readers, but a license in based on the wording of that license. The letter of the law, as it were. Not on any individual's interpretation of its intent.
Granted, you wouldn't be alone. It wouldn't be the first time an astute reader pointed out a particularly nasty bit of licensing, the issue was published, a company experienced backlash and then promptly assigned their PR people to profess confusion over the issue as the license is reworded and its new version published. Even professionals don't always grasp what their legal / licensing team is up to.
Of course, sometimes they do. And then the end user / organization is forced to deal with the license. Or legal action.
To be fair... I wouldn't classify Macromedia or Adobe as a "Windows" development house either. Their products cover windows. And they cover other environments too (although I'd like better support for Linux, but hey).
Datafage already did a fine job at pointing out the issue - the fact that having an update on Windows Update does not guarentee "widespread adoption" as the origional poster claims. Codered and Nimda are two examples where such a system should have limited damage. It didn't.
There is another interesting point to make here. The origional poster implys updates will be slow to trickle in to the Linux install base, while Windows Update offers a shortcut to the process. Microsoft's Windows Update service is not unique. Its not even first of its kind. Linux distributers such as Redhat and Mandrake have long offered a simular service. Debian has had such a system in place even earlier.
In short, Windows Update provides neither a panacea nor unique solution to the issue.
Good troll. Just in case someone actually takes this seriously...
a more likely scenerio is that they are testing the fix. Microsoft is usually rather quick about releasing things, but they believe in testing it first. Great concept that.
Microsoft's fast responces to security issues is a recent event. They do not have a history of fast responce. But they do have a history of putting out fixes that cause problems. It is common practice to delay rolling out hotfixes and service packs to allow for discovery of these bugs and subsequent fixes.
Oh, and it will be available on windows update so that it will actually have wide spread adoption. Lets see how wide spread the linux fix is.
Yep. That's why CodeRed and Nimda weren't able to do much damage. Oh. Wait.
Since 80% of redhat boxes are rooted in the first 24 hours there seems to be a rather large precedence for boxes not being patched when they should be.
Nice statistic. Got a valid reference for it? Or is that just a bogus number to make your rant sound nice?
Microsoft may be a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. If they were they would never have gained absolute control of the desktop.
People often confuse Microsoft's marketing savvy with their technical ability. They are a technical company who excels at marketing. You're crowing about their marketing. This is a technical issue (information security is not a marketing issue - despite how many companies, MS included, tend to handle it).
If the strength of Linux is closing the barn doors after the horses have ran amok, I think I'll investigate BSD, where they, you know, actively audit the code.
Perhapse you'd like to catch up on recent events with OpenSSH? Yes. The one from OpenBSD.
Yes, if security is your main concern, one should consider OpenBSD. And their creating of OpenSSH is a great service towards the entire open source (heck - IT / infosec) community. But lets not use it in a lame attempt at a flame war.
It would take wholesale public rebelion. That would require a movement. And Saddam has already proven very effective at ferreting out leaders of movements against him and eliminating them. Entire populations if need be.
Also, remember that the Iraq military is the best avenue for a smart, upwardly mobile young man who isn't born in to means. Where will rebelion leaders come from? The military. And as previously stated, Sadam has willingly executed Iraqi officers numerous times.
Sure, its easier dealing with a complient public. But in Saddam's case, public support is not a dire issue.
The problem with this is that ever since the cold war era and afterwards, the greatest deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons is the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Knowing this and the idiocy behinds the huge arms race, there was a feeling of peace in that your enemy would not use nuclear weapons against use and you wouldn't use it against them. It was at an equilibrium (maybe not an ideal one, but still maintain stability in the world)
I don't think you're doing justice to the situation as it existed. From reading your description, I get the analogy that I've got a gun and you've got a gun. I don't shoot at you because I know you'll shoot back. Close. But not quite right. The situation was more dire.
I have a gun at your head, you have one at mine. We're both intently watching each other's trigger finger. If I begin to squeeze, you'll squeeze and we'll both be dead. But I'm watching closely just in case you get some idea that you can be just quick enough to get me before I can react. And I'm kinda shaking and wobbling. So are you. Or is that you tensing your finger ready for the squeeze?
No, the US will attack "Australia" preemptively because you pretty much know a battle is coming, why wait for the enemy to attack you.
Again - you must have missed the whole Cold War. Remember the Soviet Union was "the evil empire"? There was no first strike. But we did have guns at each other's heads.
Of course, the world is not a stable place. Governments want nukes not just because the US has them, but because nuclear powers get different treatment. There are areas of the world in constant state of near-war. Any US servicemember stationed in South Korea can tell you that.
Sure - US policy and statements will impact world events and stability. And I'm not sure if current statements have helped world stability. But I'm even less convinced that they are pushing the world in to an unstable tailspin. Look around. The world wasn't that stable to begin with.
Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?
I believe you're mistaking two seperate issues. Would Saddam care if the Iraqi population were killed? No. Would he care if his country was attacked with nukes? Yes. There is a difference.
The Gulf War is a great example of Saddam's strategic thinking. But what we saw was only Act 1. Saddam sent his air force to Iran for safe keeping. He created a buffer zone of expendable ground troops kept in place by his valued Republican Guard who took positions behind the lines. He put on a flashy, but largely ineffective AAA lightshow (even though the US Air Force guys did get to practice some battledamage repair from it). He then waited for huge civilian casualties to roll in from US bombing. Then he could show large-scale genocide against Islam, rally Arab nations to his banner (getting his air force back from Iraq by the way), and become the biggest military leader ever known in the Arab world. The mother of all battles, indeed.
But US technology performed beyond anyone's expectations. Saddam was forced to try to support his genocide-stage plans with footage of errent missiles, casualties from populations seeking shelter in valid military targets, and "baby milk factory" footage. He failed to rally support. The curtain came down and did not go up after Act 1.
What do we get out of this? Saddam uses his civilian poplulation as pawns and has no concern for their welfare. But he does care about his military resources (remember his air force, republican guard, etc - Saddam's military is also his political power base). You can bet if the US began to nuke military resources and infrastructure, he would care. In fact, it is very likely that threat of nuclear strike detured Saddam from wide scale deployment of biological and chemical munitions (assuming the Gulf War Syndrome comes from munitions that were being destroyed by US forces).
I agree that Saddam would care, but I have to strongly disagree with the reason given here. Here's why.
First, I find it hard to believe what explains away starvation can not explain away nuclear strikes. That is, The US (or West) is attacking Islam. If the Iraqi people are actually supportive of Saddam, they'll continue to be despite whatever attack comes their way.
But Iraqi public support is likely an almost moot point. Saddam does not stay in power due to public support. He has seized and maintains support through ruthless politics. He has gassed disident populations of Iraqi citizens. He has executed groups of Iraqi military officers critical of his policies on multiple occassions. He has executed family members - two sons-in-law who fled Iraq and talked publically about Iraqi rebellion. In short, Saddam and his regime kills its opposition, eliminating dissent, and isolating anybody else who may harbor dissent for that regime.
Several years ago, the RIAA had an interesting entry in their FAQ on their site. It claimed that simply creating an MP3 (or otherwise riping to another file format) from a copyrighted source was illegal. The claim quietly disappeared some time later (if anyone has found it appear elsewhere, please provide a link). The fact that this claim had been made points to an ongoing mindset that constantly surfaces with the RIAA and their associates - control. And more specifically, a dislike of fair use copying. It has surfaced with court cases over copying CDs to audio tape. It has surfaced with concerns over low-cost home CD-R and CD-RW technology. It has surfaced in the SDMI.
Now we are seeing this attitude surface in public statements. The speech given at the recent music awards (can't remember names - shows how much I pay attention to such things) specifically mentioned "illegal riping". And now Eisner points to a campaign entitled "rip, mix burn" (as opposed to, say, "download, mix, burn" or "rip, mix, copy" or something else that suggests actual illegal actions).
Having said that: Any company that touches GPLd code with a 20 foot pole needs to ferret out the zealots in their midst : How many Slashdot stories have their been now crusading against some GPL violation or another?
Yep. You would hate to have whistle-blowers calling your company to task for license violations. Of course, that kind of thing isn't just limited to the GPL. Proprietary commercial licenses can be a real pain too.
For all of the talk about the GPL and commercial software being compatible, it is ironic seeing the countless "down with evil commercial software!" tirades on here (almost always unjust, but such details as facts elude the GPL crusaders).
There are probably a few cases where that kind of sentiment has been expressed - I say this because of the "MusicCity stole Gnucleus code!" threads recently (where it is perfectly legal to fork GPL'd projects if the license requirements are adheared to). And then there's RMS. But oddball examples aside... I believe you're generally wrong. Take a look again. Most of the accusations of "evil" have to do with business practices, and not commercial software itself.
it AMAZES ME, that the security analysts who keep saying there is no such thing as a unhackable system heap laud and praise on every "unhackable *" released.
You have quotes and references to the same security analysts making both of these claims?
...some things I've seen seem to contradict the basic logic it takes to operate a toaster or use a telephone.
I have also put in time at a helldesk. What I found interesting were the numerous times simply repeating the problem to the customer (to ensure you have an understanding of the issue) or otherwise providing a simple answer would be received by a sheepish "oh!" The light dawns. Logic sinks in. And the confused user flees with a quick "ummm... thanks."
It seems that our society has one (amoung many) rule well lodged in its collective conscious: computers are hard. Above the monitor hangs a subconcious sign reading "abandon all logic, ye who presses enter here." The user then replaces the void left by logic with the phone number to their helldesk of choice (could be ISP, could be computer manufactorer - the questions I've had asked at the ISP helldesk seems to indicate the choice is random).
From that point, its all fodder for tech humor sites, cartoons, etc.
Remember: complain about spam all you like, but the problem is that the spam is effective.
Yes, yes. Sure. "Spam works." There are also other industries that turn a considerable profit too. Psychic teleservices and technological snake oil are two recent examples. They are both high-profit, highly visible / advertised... and under Federal investigation.
Thanks Blizzard/Vivendi! I didn't know this existed until you tried to squash it. Now I have a copy of the code and will likely begin playing around with it later on.
Please feel free to try and squash any other cool projects I might not already be interested in / known it exists.
Perhapse. However, those don't bother me as much. They're filler between show times. The ads that bother me is the new wave of commercials shown at show time - right in there with the trailers, "visit the snack bar", and "turn off pagers, beepers, and shut up" blurbs.
Also, I'll bet money that after people begin feeling comfortable with paying for content, the ads will come back. It's just the nature of the beast.
Indeed. It already happens in other environments.
My wife occasionally manages to drag me out to a movie (or I go otherwise willingly on the rare occasion when there's one that seems worth going to). I tend to have her pay for the tickets to avoid the sinking feeling as the majority of a $20 bill disappears in to the vortex that is the box office (and we haven't even come near to the snack bar yet).
But what the heck. I eventually get a comfortable stadium-style seat in a nice theatre with a good screen and decent sound. I'm all set to watch the movie. And, of course, I might get a chance to see the trialer of another movie I'm looking forward to. Or I might have to suffer a string of Hollywood drivel and note what I may (or most likely) not rent if I'm really hard pressed for a movie at home. But what do I get?
20 minutes of commercials. Not movie trailers. Commercials. For soda. Cars. Washing detergent. You'd almost think I'm home watching television. Except I paid a premium price for the privilege.
If Linux did the same sort of thing to MS, people would laud Linux for taking a stand against MS.
...
No matter what your take on MS, remember, they are a business, and it MAKES BUSINESS sense for them to do this.
One of the apparent cornerstones of the community that seems to frequent this forum is functionality. Part of the definition of functionality is the ability to make diverse platforms / technologies interface. Anything that interferes with the ability to interface components is "evil".
Sometimes the interference is poor system design. Sometimes it is proprietary technology. And sometimes the technology that interferes with functionality is a marketing strategy.
Enter Microsoft.
We all know Microsoft is a technology company. But it seems to escape a lot of people's realization that they are a technology company who excels at marketing. It is their marketing, and not their technology, that makes them a leader.
A key part of Microsoft's marketing strategy is forced incompatability in their products. And in this community, that makes them "evil".
To be sure - anybody who uses the same strategy will be viewed unfavorably. Even companies who base their products on Linux.
Of course, Microsoft has a very long history of consistantly "evil" behavior. There is a good reason this community distrusts them. And they have deserved that distrust and criticism.
Sure - businesses should make money. But here's a novel concept - make money by making a good product. Use marketing as a tool to make sure people get to hear about your product and its advantages. And sure, this may sound very quaint to the Microsoft appologist / fan. But then, the free market concept has been around for a long time.
Linux may be ready for the enterprise, but no one wants to be the pioneer, anymore than anyone wants to be the pioneer for WinXP in the corporate environement. Conservatism rules.
You won't be the first one to put Linux on a desktop in a corporate environment. Cisco Systems already has an official Linux desktop distro (although they also support Win2k and Solaris/Sun workstations - part of an excellent program to give their employees the tools they need/want). And I was rather shocked to hear that an aerospace contractor in the local area has a Linux desktop deployment (I've always seen Aerospace contractors as ultra-conservative with IT).
I have to wonder how many other corporate environments are quietly implementing Linux. Not in their server room. Not in their product. On the desktop.
If anythimg it'll lower the cost of their machines as they get out from the Microsoft tax, making them better options for us system builders.
You haven't been paying much attention to OEM licensing discussions, have you? Linux Refund Day provided a great object lesson. The per-unit price for Windows is negligible. And that price is already paid whether your unit ships with Windows or not. To avoid the "Microsoft tax", OEMs will have to abandon Windows. And as much as I would like to see OEMs have that option, right now they don't.
Yep. Houston is swamp land. Especially the Clear Lake area (I used to be able to see JSC out my back porch - now I live on the other side of the lake itself).
You think there's a witches brew from the Petroleum industry. Just think about all the chemicals and biological agents dumped in to Houston's bayous from flooded university labs last year.
In any case - JSC does have some degree of underground structures. I'll have to dig up some info on that room and find out exactly how deep it goes. But otherwise, JSC has a somewhat extensive network of underground utility tunnels (although they don't got THAT deep, but I understand they're very wet).
Having said all that - The Alien Room is labled as such because of our sense of humor. Not because of its actual use.:)
If you didn't want to listen to P. T. Barnum (who is often incorrectly attributed) and don't see AOL as further proof... SPAM has got to be some of the best evidence.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
A great expose of how spammers operate comes from one of the mirrored sites Behind Enemy Lines. It shows that if SPAM itself isn't always profitable, selling the service of spamming certainly is. And to make this profit, spammers will resort to illegal activities.
Of course, when you consider the morals this group has already demonstrated, it should come to no suprise that their most agressive campaign was a stock pump-n-dump scam.
Does SPAM pay? Apparently. But so do a lot of other crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Does the license make an exception for "administrative purposes"? The quoted portion in the article certainly doesn't point to one.
It might shock you and other readers, but a license in based on the wording of that license. The letter of the law, as it were. Not on any individual's interpretation of its intent.
Granted, you wouldn't be alone. It wouldn't be the first time an astute reader pointed out a particularly nasty bit of licensing, the issue was published, a company experienced backlash and then promptly assigned their PR people to profess confusion over the issue as the license is reworded and its new version published. Even professionals don't always grasp what their legal / licensing team is up to.
Of course, sometimes they do. And then the end user / organization is forced to deal with the license. Or legal action.
To be fair... I wouldn't classify Macromedia or Adobe as a "Windows" development house either. Their products cover windows. And they cover other environments too (although I'd like better support for Linux, but hey).
There is another interesting point to make here. The origional poster implys updates will be slow to trickle in to the Linux install base, while Windows Update offers a shortcut to the process. Microsoft's Windows Update service is not unique. Its not even first of its kind. Linux distributers such as Redhat and Mandrake have long offered a simular service. Debian has had such a system in place even earlier.
In short, Windows Update provides neither a panacea nor unique solution to the issue.
Microsoft's fast responces to security issues is a recent event. They do not have a history of fast responce. But they do have a history of putting out fixes that cause problems. It is common practice to delay rolling out hotfixes and service packs to allow for discovery of these bugs and subsequent fixes.
Yep. That's why CodeRed and Nimda weren't able to do much damage. Oh. Wait.
Nice statistic. Got a valid reference for it? Or is that just a bogus number to make your rant sound nice?
People often confuse Microsoft's marketing savvy with their technical ability. They are a technical company who excels at marketing. You're crowing about their marketing. This is a technical issue (information security is not a marketing issue - despite how many companies, MS included, tend to handle it).
Perhapse you'd like to catch up on recent events with OpenSSH? Yes. The one from OpenBSD.
Yes, if security is your main concern, one should consider OpenBSD. And their creating of OpenSSH is a great service towards the entire open source (heck - IT / infosec) community. But lets not use it in a lame attempt at a flame war.
Also, remember that the Iraq military is the best avenue for a smart, upwardly mobile young man who isn't born in to means. Where will rebelion leaders come from? The military. And as previously stated, Sadam has willingly executed Iraqi officers numerous times.
Sure, its easier dealing with a complient public. But in Saddam's case, public support is not a dire issue.
I don't think you're doing justice to the situation as it existed. From reading your description, I get the analogy that I've got a gun and you've got a gun. I don't shoot at you because I know you'll shoot back. Close. But not quite right. The situation was more dire.
I have a gun at your head, you have one at mine. We're both intently watching each other's trigger finger. If I begin to squeeze, you'll squeeze and we'll both be dead. But I'm watching closely just in case you get some idea that you can be just quick enough to get me before I can react. And I'm kinda shaking and wobbling. So are you. Or is that you tensing your finger ready for the squeeze?
Again - you must have missed the whole Cold War. Remember the Soviet Union was "the evil empire"? There was no first strike. But we did have guns at each other's heads.
Of course, the world is not a stable place. Governments want nukes not just because the US has them, but because nuclear powers get different treatment. There are areas of the world in constant state of near-war. Any US servicemember stationed in South Korea can tell you that.
Sure - US policy and statements will impact world events and stability. And I'm not sure if current statements have helped world stability. But I'm even less convinced that they are pushing the world in to an unstable tailspin. Look around. The world wasn't that stable to begin with.
I believe you're mistaking two seperate issues. Would Saddam care if the Iraqi population were killed? No. Would he care if his country was attacked with nukes? Yes. There is a difference.
The Gulf War is a great example of Saddam's strategic thinking. But what we saw was only Act 1. Saddam sent his air force to Iran for safe keeping. He created a buffer zone of expendable ground troops kept in place by his valued Republican Guard who took positions behind the lines. He put on a flashy, but largely ineffective AAA lightshow (even though the US Air Force guys did get to practice some battledamage repair from it). He then waited for huge civilian casualties to roll in from US bombing. Then he could show large-scale genocide against Islam, rally Arab nations to his banner (getting his air force back from Iraq by the way), and become the biggest military leader ever known in the Arab world. The mother of all battles, indeed.
But US technology performed beyond anyone's expectations. Saddam was forced to try to support his genocide-stage plans with footage of errent missiles, casualties from populations seeking shelter in valid military targets, and "baby milk factory" footage. He failed to rally support. The curtain came down and did not go up after Act 1.
What do we get out of this? Saddam uses his civilian poplulation as pawns and has no concern for their welfare. But he does care about his military resources (remember his air force, republican guard, etc - Saddam's military is also his political power base). You can bet if the US began to nuke military resources and infrastructure, he would care. In fact, it is very likely that threat of nuclear strike detured Saddam from wide scale deployment of biological and chemical munitions (assuming the Gulf War Syndrome comes from munitions that were being destroyed by US forces).
First, I find it hard to believe what explains away starvation can not explain away nuclear strikes. That is, The US (or West) is attacking Islam. If the Iraqi people are actually supportive of Saddam, they'll continue to be despite whatever attack comes their way.
But Iraqi public support is likely an almost moot point. Saddam does not stay in power due to public support. He has seized and maintains support through ruthless politics. He has gassed disident populations of Iraqi citizens. He has executed groups of Iraqi military officers critical of his policies on multiple occassions. He has executed family members - two sons-in-law who fled Iraq and talked publically about Iraqi rebellion. In short, Saddam and his regime kills its opposition, eliminating dissent, and isolating anybody else who may harbor dissent for that regime.
Public support is not an issue.
Now we are seeing this attitude surface in public statements. The speech given at the recent music awards (can't remember names - shows how much I pay attention to such things) specifically mentioned "illegal riping". And now Eisner points to a campaign entitled "rip, mix burn" (as opposed to, say, "download, mix, burn" or "rip, mix, copy" or something else that suggests actual illegal actions).
Yep. You would hate to have whistle-blowers calling your company to task for license violations. Of course, that kind of thing isn't just limited to the GPL. Proprietary commercial licenses can be a real pain too.
There are probably a few cases where that kind of sentiment has been expressed - I say this because of the "MusicCity stole Gnucleus code!" threads recently (where it is perfectly legal to fork GPL'd projects if the license requirements are adheared to). And then there's RMS. But oddball examples aside... I believe you're generally wrong. Take a look again. Most of the accusations of "evil" have to do with business practices, and not commercial software itself.
You have quotes and references to the same security analysts making both of these claims?
Really? I was not aware of a charge for use of "the Linux logo." Do you have links to the logo in question and the fees required for that logo's use?
In this case, BSD licensing would get them what? Their names mentioned in the Help|about window?
I have also put in time at a helldesk. What I found interesting were the numerous times simply repeating the problem to the customer (to ensure you have an understanding of the issue) or otherwise providing a simple answer would be received by a sheepish "oh!" The light dawns. Logic sinks in. And the confused user flees with a quick "ummm... thanks."
It seems that our society has one (amoung many) rule well lodged in its collective conscious: computers are hard. Above the monitor hangs a subconcious sign reading "abandon all logic, ye who presses enter here." The user then replaces the void left by logic with the phone number to their helldesk of choice (could be ISP, could be computer manufactorer - the questions I've had asked at the ISP helldesk seems to indicate the choice is random).
From that point, its all fodder for tech humor sites, cartoons, etc.
Yes, yes. Sure. "Spam works." There are also other industries that turn a considerable profit too. Psychic teleservices and technological snake oil are two recent examples. They are both high-profit, highly visible / advertised... and under Federal investigation.
Please feel free to try and squash any other cool projects I might not already be interested in / known it exists.
Perhapse. However, those don't bother me as much. They're filler between show times. The ads that bother me is the new wave of commercials shown at show time - right in there with the trailers, "visit the snack bar", and "turn off pagers, beepers, and shut up" blurbs.
Indeed. It already happens in other environments.
My wife occasionally manages to drag me out to a movie (or I go otherwise willingly on the rare occasion when there's one that seems worth going to). I tend to have her pay for the tickets to avoid the sinking feeling as the majority of a $20 bill disappears in to the vortex that is the box office (and we haven't even come near to the snack bar yet).
But what the heck. I eventually get a comfortable stadium-style seat in a nice theatre with a good screen and decent sound. I'm all set to watch the movie. And, of course, I might get a chance to see the trialer of another movie I'm looking forward to. Or I might have to suffer a string of Hollywood drivel and note what I may (or most likely) not rent if I'm really hard pressed for a movie at home. But what do I get?
20 minutes of commercials. Not movie trailers. Commercials. For soda. Cars. Washing detergent. You'd almost think I'm home watching television. Except I paid a premium price for the privilege.
...so Blizzard is just the AGENT of evil.
One of the apparent cornerstones of the community that seems to frequent this forum is functionality. Part of the definition of functionality is the ability to make diverse platforms / technologies interface. Anything that interferes with the ability to interface components is "evil".
Sometimes the interference is poor system design. Sometimes it is proprietary technology. And sometimes the technology that interferes with functionality is a marketing strategy.
Enter Microsoft.
We all know Microsoft is a technology company. But it seems to escape a lot of people's realization that they are a technology company who excels at marketing. It is their marketing, and not their technology, that makes them a leader.
A key part of Microsoft's marketing strategy is forced incompatability in their products. And in this community, that makes them "evil".
To be sure - anybody who uses the same strategy will be viewed unfavorably. Even companies who base their products on Linux.
Of course, Microsoft has a very long history of consistantly "evil" behavior. There is a good reason this community distrusts them. And they have deserved that distrust and criticism.
Sure - businesses should make money. But here's a novel concept - make money by making a good product. Use marketing as a tool to make sure people get to hear about your product and its advantages. And sure, this may sound very quaint to the Microsoft appologist / fan. But then, the free market concept has been around for a long time.
You won't be the first one to put Linux on a desktop in a corporate environment. Cisco Systems already has an official Linux desktop distro (although they also support Win2k and Solaris/Sun workstations - part of an excellent program to give their employees the tools they need/want). And I was rather shocked to hear that an aerospace contractor in the local area has a Linux desktop deployment (I've always seen Aerospace contractors as ultra-conservative with IT).
I have to wonder how many other corporate environments are quietly implementing Linux. Not in their server room. Not in their product. On the desktop.
You haven't been paying much attention to OEM licensing discussions, have you? Linux Refund Day provided a great object lesson. The per-unit price for Windows is negligible. And that price is already paid whether your unit ships with Windows or not. To avoid the "Microsoft tax", OEMs will have to abandon Windows. And as much as I would like to see OEMs have that option, right now they don't.
You think there's a witches brew from the Petroleum industry. Just think about all the chemicals and biological agents dumped in to Houston's bayous from flooded university labs last year.
In any case - JSC does have some degree of underground structures. I'll have to dig up some info on that room and find out exactly how deep it goes. But otherwise, JSC has a somewhat extensive network of underground utility tunnels (although they don't got THAT deep, but I understand they're very wet).
Having said all that - The Alien Room is labled as such because of our sense of humor. Not because of its actual use.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
A great expose of how spammers operate comes from one of the mirrored sites Behind Enemy Lines. It shows that if SPAM itself isn't always profitable, selling the service of spamming certainly is. And to make this profit, spammers will resort to illegal activities.
Of course, when you consider the morals this group has already demonstrated, it should come to no suprise that their most agressive campaign was a stock pump-n-dump scam.
Does SPAM pay? Apparently. But so do a lot of other crimes.