Google's definition of Open Source plays to muddy the waters with "Free Open Source Software." Chrome is Open Source, and free to use, but it's not free software. The license creates unfortunate restrictions on what you can do with the software, they use use ambiguous terms such as "Intellectual Property" in it.
For example, if you have modified Chrome browser and have a "distribution" of it, and Google wants you to include some new patch, you HAVE to apply that patch or you're no longer within the terms of the license.
I get real tired of all of these fake addictions.. Addicted to online games, addicted to cell phones, addicted to Wikipedia.. No. It's just a habbit, or something you enjoy doing.
I absolutely love roller coasters. I go to the park every year if I can. I'm not addicted to roller coasters.
It downplays REAL, physical addictions. It's so self-serving. "I can't help it. I'm addicted to Texting." No.
Surely you didn't take my statement to mean I am a proponent of anarchy.
We do need to help manage risk, and we need a government that can help facilitate major risk reduction that's not possible at a personal level.
However, more and more we see this taken to the extreme and abused. We won't want to live in a rubber box. I'm willing to accept that there are crazy people in this world that will do bad things and I'm not willing to surrender my freedom to prevent these nut jobs from doing what they'll do anyways.
I agree that not including even basic documentation for a feature of a program is pretty piss poor, I've encountered the same problem on countless non-free software titles so the problem doesn't exist just in FOSS. It might be a little bit better in the non-free world but besides Microsoft Office and Adobe software there's usually shit included as part of the software and you're forced to seek Google out anyways.
So yes, I agree that it needs to improve. But no, I don't agree that the problem is significantly worse with FOSS.
The problem with too many Quality controls on the official repository for a distribution like Ubuntu is that they just aren't powerful enough to evoke any change, and would hurt their user base by not including very useful, albeit lightly sprinkled with documentation, software. And, it would take a lot of admin overhead, and there would be controversy, etc etc.
Just in case you didn't notice, Gnome and KDE are a little bit more than a Window Manager. For all intents and purposes, it IS the Desktop Operating system.
You are much less likely to run a Linux application or a GNU application then you are to run a Gnome/GTK application or a KDE/QT application, which will run on nearly any system that supports those libraries.
When I hit F1 in Ubuntu, I'm presented with a pretty nice little help system complete with instructions on how to do a lot of things.
So yea, maybe GNUCash isn't as precise with the documentation as Microsoft Money of Quicken or something, but that's just one App. While I do believe that it's generally true that FOSS has less end-user documentation and help screens as many of their non-free counter-parts, I don't agree that the problem is very substantial. Not when we have.. The Internet these days.
The GPL and Open Source *is* a legal construct. It exists to decriminalize the re-use of code. That's ALL.
It has NOTHING to do with all this so-called "openness" and such.
The quality of the documentation for a particular piece of code does not affect what you can and cannot do with that code. You, the end-user, have a choice to either use the program or not. If you decide that the documentation is too lacking, you can decide to not use it. That's the actual freedom - the freedom to do whatever the hell you want.
I agree. And let's be frank, there's shit documentation for Windows and MacOS, too. The linux help for Gnome and KDE is pretty decent, at least as good as Windows. Otherwise, where's the documentation for managing Windows systems? It really doesn't exist, outside of training classes and such.
Google/Search is the best way to get help with any computer problems or questions you might have, and Linux really excels here. You can find a hundred times the help online for most things Linux then you can with Windows or MacOS.
You don't seem to know Exchange very well. Really, you're faulting the software because your system isn't run very well and you don't know how to properly manage the system.
What "Workflow" features are you talking about, specifically? Because where I sit, Exchange is E-Mail and Calendar, and everything else has been downplayed in recent versions (starting with Exchange 2000.) That's what it is, and e-mail system. It's not overkill if that's what you're using it for.
Perhaps going directly to Domino/Notes would be overkill for a new organization since it's basically an application and database platform with e-mail added.
Clients will auto-migrate to new servers if you do it properly. It's funny you cite that because that's practically the most seamless thing you can do - move mailboxes to other servers. Client logs in and finds the new server and updates the profile.
I've never had Exchange go "Bonkers" except in the case of faulty hardware which would make any system go "Bonkers." Or, a very poorly designed system.
My last gig had an Exchange org with about 3500 users. We had no mailbox limits. Some people had 8GB mailboxes, some people had 50MB mailboxes. The biggest problem was just dealing with the unpredictability of storage requirements. Hardly the fault of Exchange, and easily dealt with (moving mailboxes is easy. Well, for everyone but you, I guess.)
I'm absolutely mystified as to why anyone would suggest Exchange sucks for e-mail? It's wonderful. And Outlook isn't bad at all, what the hell are you talking about? What's better?
You can say "it sucks" all you want but I can't take you seriously without actual reasons. I have to assume you just have a chip on your shoulder.
Yea, and e-mail/calendaring is what Exchange does best. All it takes is a little bit of planning and you can easily run thousands of mailboxes on a single machine. Of course, you'd be dumb to do so, as you should always have another machine for redundancy. Exchange 2007 has nice new clustering features eliminating the requirement and complexity of a shared storage system. You can replicate the database to a standby system with its' own disk system.
Less we not forget that a big advantage of a system like Exhcange is that when you use Exchange clients (and/or IMAP) you keep a copy of all the mail on the server. A desktop getting killed won't make a user lose all their mail.
Windows Server 2008 includes all you need to back up an Exchange system effectively and restore it quick. Of course, it's not the most robust backup system but it works well.
I guess if you're not an Exchange guy it might seem difficult but honestly it's pretty easy and Exchange 2007 is the easiest yet. I've been an Exchange admin for some pretty large (7000+ mailbox) Exchange systems and once it's up and running you basically just baby sit a bunch of servers that never go down.
Yea, I'd agree with SQL too - The SQL team is similar to the Exchange team. They have a lot of autonomy within the organization.
Microsoft does make some good software, even if they are an evil company.
In the end, when you compare prices with Exchange versus other similar in functionality systems, Exchange is cheaper by a mile.
Naa. It's "OWA Light" - they even call it that. It's definately better than OWA on Exchange 2003 and it's completely usable, but the IE version is leaps and bounds better. The IE version allows drag and drop, right click context menus, access to file servers on the corporate network, integration with Sharepoint, etc etc etc.
It's unfortunate, because they could do all that with standard web technologies.
I think they might make it better next time around because more and more companies are pushing out Firefox with desktop builds but it's Microsoft so you just never know how snotty they will be.
Exchange isn't targeted at you, though. If you just need a space for a few people to share some documents and stuff, that solution would probably be fine. But, if you're a company and you want to keep your data in-house, Exchange is not a bad option in almost any environment. It's very stable. Most Exchange organizations, no matter how big, are able to provide extremely high up-time with minimal effort.
Microsoft has a lot of really shoddy software that just doesn't work very well. Exchange isn't one of them, though.
Sure but the only time they have your key is when you're logged on to the Web interface. Otherwise, it's stored locally on the client and only encrypted data is sent to the online backup system. Presumably, when you logout, your key is destroyed and not stored anywhere.
Sure, you can't be 100% sure, but there's no reason for them to capture your password and hold on to it in order to index and check contents for copyrights, and you can be reasonably assured that it would be difficult for a hacker to remotely download everyone's passwords in one fell swoop.
For very sensitive documents I'd hesitate to use even these systems to protect the data.
I've taken a different approach to data protection; I have all the hardware RAID stuff and everything (Accusys RAID cards: Good cards, nonexistant support. You can't call them, and they don't respond to e-mail. Never buy one.) and I do backups of other machines to the main file server, and I use Roaming Profiles and all that jazz. To protect the 4.8TB against a fire, I sync the entire thing to a friends house via replication. We have a VPN between us, and we replicate our file servers with DFSR.
DFS-R is the only product I've been able to find that allows for two-way replication of a file server in (relatively) real time. It's pretty effecient over the wire and neat benefits include being able to bring my machine to his house, plug in, and have access to everything locally (via DFS Namespaces and site awareness.)
It's not perfect, and I've had to become a bit of an expert on the software to get it to run reliably and deal with any of it's quirks (such as the inability to pre-stage no matter how many people say otherwise. We use an external drive and a VMware VM to pre-stage things that we want to start replicating. Then we bring the drive over to the other location and replicate the data to the destination, and then remove the VM from the replication set.)
Believe you me, I looked for a Linux solution. RSync wasn't going to do the trick - I didn't want to run an RSync on a schedule or other such nonsense. I just wanted replication to happen automatically and I wanted it to be truly two-way. DFS-R was, and still is, the only player in the game.
Well, AC, the server side runs on Windows. However, on the client side you can run any POP or IMAP client you want, or you can use Evolution and get access to pretty much all of the Exchange features such as address lists, calendars, etc.
There's also Exchange native clients for MacOS and Windows. Also, any mobile client capable of utilizing Exchange ActiveSync can get "blackberry-like" abilities for no extra cost. Not to mention you can also run a BES.
If a requirement of yours is to run the server end on Linux, you could run Domino/Notes, but that's a lot more expensive than Exchange.
The accepted definition of Cloud Computing pretty much lines up to what eln said. It's the means of abstracting the application and data away from the physical hardware or operating systems they run on. He explained the modern VMware/Xen/etc approach, which pretty closely matches what big iron used to do back in the day.
Eh. Exchange is pretty cheap, and you get a ton of nice features. It's also friendly to many different types of clients - POP, IMAP, etc. Compared to other groupware systems out there, it's very competitive and it's actually quite stable. Exchange has and continues to be Microsoft's best product. The Exchange Team is generally allowed to be it's own development organization and they deliver a good product.
My biggest gripe is that the OWA is still way better for Internet Explorer only. The OWA for any other browser has improved too, but OWA on IE is almost as good as using full Outlook. Microsoft could make OWA for any browser just as good if they stopped with the ActiveX bullshit and just did it with Javascript.
I've searched and hunted for something Open Source that can do even some of what Exchange can do (in terms of client connectivity and web interface functionality) and have really found nada. Nothing in the free open source zone, and only a couple of products in the "somewhat" open source zone.
This is the same reason I never ran Google Desktop. Google Desktop saves indexes on their servers. I want a level of privacy.
There's no, none, nada guarantee that your data is safe or secure when using ANY online system. Just look at what happened with the Sidekicks recently. Who would have ever thought that could ever happen? They had backups, they had RAID, they had redundant servers. But, shit happens, and it did, and it CAN happen to Google.
Plus, now you've got all this censorship bullshit. Well, it's not Censorship mostly, it's "protecting copyright." At all costs. It could easily disintegrate into real full-blown censorship, too.
These services will be popular and I'll probably even use them eventually, but only for documents and files that I don't care if people get their hands on, and that I don't care if I lose. For everything else, it's backups as usual.
There's services such as Carbonite and others that provide a way to back up your system in a mostly secure way. From what I understand, with Carbonite, everything is encrypted on their servers, and only your password will decrypt the files, even through the Web interface. This seems acceptable to me, and their servers aren't crawling through my documents making sure there's nothing copyright in there.
Yea, no doubt. They put the rules in the books more for liability than anything else. Angry Parent: "YOU LET THEM SURF THE INTERNETZZ!!>???" Principal: "No, it clearly states we do not."
I think half of the laws on our own books is just so the police can pile more things on when you get busted for something. Say you get in trouble for pulling off the highway to take a leak in the woods. They'll get you for public urination, indecent exposure, Tresspassing, and crazy laws nobody knows about like "pulling off the road without a vehicle problem" or "Recreation around a public roadway" or something. You'll end up with 15 charges because you needed to take a piss.
No, I had the right word. Liberalism is the belief in personal freedom. Even if it's been warped in recent times, it doesn't mean the definition of the word has changed.
I don't necessarily disagree with hate crime enhancements and I don't necessarily disagree with hate-speech laws. It depends on to what degree. If a group of people goes out beating up a bunch of homosexual men just because they are gay, I think that might just deserve a couple extra years in jail. And, if you're using hate speech to incite a riot, it might not be a bad idea to be able to prosecute that person.
Generally speaking though, we have far too many laws on the book.
I believe in individual freedom, but I also don't want YOUR individual freedom to infringe on MY individual freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's definition of Open Source plays to muddy the waters with "Free Open Source Software." Chrome is Open Source, and free to use, but it's not free software. The license creates unfortunate restrictions on what you can do with the software, they use use ambiguous terms such as "Intellectual Property" in it.
For example, if you have modified Chrome browser and have a "distribution" of it, and Google wants you to include some new patch, you HAVE to apply that patch or you're no longer within the terms of the license.
Open Source != Free Software.
I get real tired of all of these fake addictions.. Addicted to online games, addicted to cell phones, addicted to Wikipedia.. No. It's just a habbit, or something you enjoy doing.
I absolutely love roller coasters. I go to the park every year if I can. I'm not addicted to roller coasters.
It downplays REAL, physical addictions. It's so self-serving. "I can't help it. I'm addicted to Texting." No.
Surely you didn't take my statement to mean I am a proponent of anarchy.
We do need to help manage risk, and we need a government that can help facilitate major risk reduction that's not possible at a personal level.
However, more and more we see this taken to the extreme and abused. We won't want to live in a rubber box. I'm willing to accept that there are crazy people in this world that will do bad things and I'm not willing to surrender my freedom to prevent these nut jobs from doing what they'll do anyways.
I just don't think it's necessarily a problem.
I agree that not including even basic documentation for a feature of a program is pretty piss poor, I've encountered the same problem on countless non-free software titles so the problem doesn't exist just in FOSS. It might be a little bit better in the non-free world but besides Microsoft Office and Adobe software there's usually shit included as part of the software and you're forced to seek Google out anyways.
So yes, I agree that it needs to improve. But no, I don't agree that the problem is significantly worse with FOSS.
The problem with too many Quality controls on the official repository for a distribution like Ubuntu is that they just aren't powerful enough to evoke any change, and would hurt their user base by not including very useful, albeit lightly sprinkled with documentation, software. And, it would take a lot of admin overhead, and there would be controversy, etc etc.
Risk is the price of freedom, and the sooner people learn this, the sooner we can move on to improving our civilization.
Unfortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, and that's bad news for freedom.
ps. If you stop using a cell phone after years of use, you won't feel physically and mentally ill. Not the same as smoking.
Just in case you didn't notice, Gnome and KDE are a little bit more than a Window Manager. For all intents and purposes, it IS the Desktop Operating system.
You are much less likely to run a Linux application or a GNU application then you are to run a Gnome/GTK application or a KDE/QT application, which will run on nearly any system that supports those libraries.
When I hit F1 in Ubuntu, I'm presented with a pretty nice little help system complete with instructions on how to do a lot of things.
So yea, maybe GNUCash isn't as precise with the documentation as Microsoft Money of Quicken or something, but that's just one App. While I do believe that it's generally true that FOSS has less end-user documentation and help screens as many of their non-free counter-parts, I don't agree that the problem is very substantial. Not when we have.. The Internet these days.
Ohh stop your bitching.
The GPL and Open Source *is* a legal construct. It exists to decriminalize the re-use of code. That's ALL.
It has NOTHING to do with all this so-called "openness" and such.
The quality of the documentation for a particular piece of code does not affect what you can and cannot do with that code. You, the end-user, have a choice to either use the program or not. If you decide that the documentation is too lacking, you can decide to not use it. That's the actual freedom - the freedom to do whatever the hell you want.
You misunderstand FOSS completely. I'm mystified.
I agree. And let's be frank, there's shit documentation for Windows and MacOS, too. The linux help for Gnome and KDE is pretty decent, at least as good as Windows. Otherwise, where's the documentation for managing Windows systems? It really doesn't exist, outside of training classes and such.
Google/Search is the best way to get help with any computer problems or questions you might have, and Linux really excels here. You can find a hundred times the help online for most things Linux then you can with Windows or MacOS.
... Yea, seven years ago. Give a site a break, sheesh.
You don't seem to know Exchange very well. Really, you're faulting the software because your system isn't run very well and you don't know how to properly manage the system.
What "Workflow" features are you talking about, specifically? Because where I sit, Exchange is E-Mail and Calendar, and everything else has been downplayed in recent versions (starting with Exchange 2000.) That's what it is, and e-mail system. It's not overkill if that's what you're using it for.
Perhaps going directly to Domino/Notes would be overkill for a new organization since it's basically an application and database platform with e-mail added.
Clients will auto-migrate to new servers if you do it properly. It's funny you cite that because that's practically the most seamless thing you can do - move mailboxes to other servers. Client logs in and finds the new server and updates the profile.
I've never had Exchange go "Bonkers" except in the case of faulty hardware which would make any system go "Bonkers." Or, a very poorly designed system.
My last gig had an Exchange org with about 3500 users. We had no mailbox limits. Some people had 8GB mailboxes, some people had 50MB mailboxes. The biggest problem was just dealing with the unpredictability of storage requirements. Hardly the fault of Exchange, and easily dealt with (moving mailboxes is easy. Well, for everyone but you, I guess.)
I'm absolutely mystified as to why anyone would suggest Exchange sucks for e-mail? It's wonderful. And Outlook isn't bad at all, what the hell are you talking about? What's better?
You can say "it sucks" all you want but I can't take you seriously without actual reasons. I have to assume you just have a chip on your shoulder.
Yea, and e-mail/calendaring is what Exchange does best. All it takes is a little bit of planning and you can easily run thousands of mailboxes on a single machine. Of course, you'd be dumb to do so, as you should always have another machine for redundancy. Exchange 2007 has nice new clustering features eliminating the requirement and complexity of a shared storage system. You can replicate the database to a standby system with its' own disk system.
Less we not forget that a big advantage of a system like Exhcange is that when you use Exchange clients (and/or IMAP) you keep a copy of all the mail on the server. A desktop getting killed won't make a user lose all their mail.
Windows Server 2008 includes all you need to back up an Exchange system effectively and restore it quick. Of course, it's not the most robust backup system but it works well.
I guess if you're not an Exchange guy it might seem difficult but honestly it's pretty easy and Exchange 2007 is the easiest yet. I've been an Exchange admin for some pretty large (7000+ mailbox) Exchange systems and once it's up and running you basically just baby sit a bunch of servers that never go down.
Yea, I'd agree with SQL too - The SQL team is similar to the Exchange team. They have a lot of autonomy within the organization.
Microsoft does make some good software, even if they are an evil company.
In the end, when you compare prices with Exchange versus other similar in functionality systems, Exchange is cheaper by a mile.
Naa. It's "OWA Light" - they even call it that. It's definately better than OWA on Exchange 2003 and it's completely usable, but the IE version is leaps and bounds better. The IE version allows drag and drop, right click context menus, access to file servers on the corporate network, integration with Sharepoint, etc etc etc.
It's unfortunate, because they could do all that with standard web technologies.
I think they might make it better next time around because more and more companies are pushing out Firefox with desktop builds but it's Microsoft so you just never know how snotty they will be.
I only ran it when it first was released. There was some controversy about it. I never ran it again.
I didn't like it anyways. I don't need to always search through 10 years of e-mail every time I search for anything.
Yea, I hate the term. It's so buzz word and means basically nothing.
I could. In fact, I have.
Exchange isn't targeted at you, though. If you just need a space for a few people to share some documents and stuff, that solution would probably be fine. But, if you're a company and you want to keep your data in-house, Exchange is not a bad option in almost any environment. It's very stable. Most Exchange organizations, no matter how big, are able to provide extremely high up-time with minimal effort.
Microsoft has a lot of really shoddy software that just doesn't work very well. Exchange isn't one of them, though.
Sure but the only time they have your key is when you're logged on to the Web interface. Otherwise, it's stored locally on the client and only encrypted data is sent to the online backup system. Presumably, when you logout, your key is destroyed and not stored anywhere.
Sure, you can't be 100% sure, but there's no reason for them to capture your password and hold on to it in order to index and check contents for copyrights, and you can be reasonably assured that it would be difficult for a hacker to remotely download everyone's passwords in one fell swoop.
For very sensitive documents I'd hesitate to use even these systems to protect the data.
I've taken a different approach to data protection; I have all the hardware RAID stuff and everything (Accusys RAID cards: Good cards, nonexistant support. You can't call them, and they don't respond to e-mail. Never buy one.) and I do backups of other machines to the main file server, and I use Roaming Profiles and all that jazz. To protect the 4.8TB against a fire, I sync the entire thing to a friends house via replication. We have a VPN between us, and we replicate our file servers with DFSR.
DFS-R is the only product I've been able to find that allows for two-way replication of a file server in (relatively) real time. It's pretty effecient over the wire and neat benefits include being able to bring my machine to his house, plug in, and have access to everything locally (via DFS Namespaces and site awareness.)
It's not perfect, and I've had to become a bit of an expert on the software to get it to run reliably and deal with any of it's quirks (such as the inability to pre-stage no matter how many people say otherwise. We use an external drive and a VMware VM to pre-stage things that we want to start replicating. Then we bring the drive over to the other location and replicate the data to the destination, and then remove the VM from the replication set.)
Believe you me, I looked for a Linux solution. RSync wasn't going to do the trick - I didn't want to run an RSync on a schedule or other such nonsense. I just wanted replication to happen automatically and I wanted it to be truly two-way. DFS-R was, and still is, the only player in the game.
Well, AC, the server side runs on Windows. However, on the client side you can run any POP or IMAP client you want, or you can use Evolution and get access to pretty much all of the Exchange features such as address lists, calendars, etc.
There's also Exchange native clients for MacOS and Windows. Also, any mobile client capable of utilizing Exchange ActiveSync can get "blackberry-like" abilities for no extra cost. Not to mention you can also run a BES.
If a requirement of yours is to run the server end on Linux, you could run Domino/Notes, but that's a lot more expensive than Exchange.
The accepted definition of Cloud Computing pretty much lines up to what eln said. It's the means of abstracting the application and data away from the physical hardware or operating systems they run on. He explained the modern VMware/Xen/etc approach, which pretty closely matches what big iron used to do back in the day.
What would you suggest the "correct" meaning is?
Eh. Exchange is pretty cheap, and you get a ton of nice features. It's also friendly to many different types of clients - POP, IMAP, etc. Compared to other groupware systems out there, it's very competitive and it's actually quite stable. Exchange has and continues to be Microsoft's best product. The Exchange Team is generally allowed to be it's own development organization and they deliver a good product.
My biggest gripe is that the OWA is still way better for Internet Explorer only. The OWA for any other browser has improved too, but OWA on IE is almost as good as using full Outlook. Microsoft could make OWA for any browser just as good if they stopped with the ActiveX bullshit and just did it with Javascript.
I've searched and hunted for something Open Source that can do even some of what Exchange can do (in terms of client connectivity and web interface functionality) and have really found nada. Nothing in the free open source zone, and only a couple of products in the "somewhat" open source zone.
This is the same reason I never ran Google Desktop. Google Desktop saves indexes on their servers. I want a level of privacy.
There's no, none, nada guarantee that your data is safe or secure when using ANY online system. Just look at what happened with the Sidekicks recently. Who would have ever thought that could ever happen? They had backups, they had RAID, they had redundant servers. But, shit happens, and it did, and it CAN happen to Google.
Plus, now you've got all this censorship bullshit. Well, it's not Censorship mostly, it's "protecting copyright." At all costs. It could easily disintegrate into real full-blown censorship, too.
These services will be popular and I'll probably even use them eventually, but only for documents and files that I don't care if people get their hands on, and that I don't care if I lose. For everything else, it's backups as usual.
There's services such as Carbonite and others that provide a way to back up your system in a mostly secure way. From what I understand, with Carbonite, everything is encrypted on their servers, and only your password will decrypt the files, even through the Web interface. This seems acceptable to me, and their servers aren't crawling through my documents making sure there's nothing copyright in there.
Apple + Macintosh + iPhone = Front Page of Slashdot
Yea, no doubt. They put the rules in the books more for liability than anything else. Angry Parent: "YOU LET THEM SURF THE INTERNETZZ!!>???" Principal: "No, it clearly states we do not."
I think half of the laws on our own books is just so the police can pile more things on when you get busted for something. Say you get in trouble for pulling off the highway to take a leak in the woods. They'll get you for public urination, indecent exposure, Tresspassing, and crazy laws nobody knows about like "pulling off the road without a vehicle problem" or "Recreation around a public roadway" or something. You'll end up with 15 charges because you needed to take a piss.
We're supposed to separate the entirety of "the Chinese people" with their government when discussing a key issue with their society?
That makes no sense.
And have you ever participated in a discussion?
So, people aren't supposed to be able to disagree with you because you used the word "if?"
Dumbass.
No, I had the right word. Liberalism is the belief in personal freedom. Even if it's been warped in recent times, it doesn't mean the definition of the word has changed.
I don't necessarily disagree with hate crime enhancements and I don't necessarily disagree with hate-speech laws. It depends on to what degree. If a group of people goes out beating up a bunch of homosexual men just because they are gay, I think that might just deserve a couple extra years in jail. And, if you're using hate speech to incite a riot, it might not be a bad idea to be able to prosecute that person.
Generally speaking though, we have far too many laws on the book.
I believe in individual freedom, but I also don't want YOUR individual freedom to infringe on MY individual freedom.