Pray they don't find the GPL unenforceable. Yes, SCO could get sued by quite a few of these project owners, however you're missing the point:
SCO DOESN'T CARE
There's no principle in it for them here. McBride talks about getting 'square' or 'clean', but he's laughing at all of us. That's not the intent at all.
They aren't in this to prove anything other than trying to find out how much wealth the execs can aquire before it all comes crashing down. SCO WILL go down - let's hope they don't take the GPL with them.
That would be a valid point except that they continue to use software based on this license. If they were truly serious about challenging it, they'd almost have to stop using it altogether.
But see, the thing is, THEY SIGNED ON TO THE CONCEPT. It would be one thing if the GPL fell down out of the sky and hit them on their collective heads (oh, how I wish); but these people need to live up to their agreements. Don't forget, they continue to use and benefit from GPL'd software in UnixWare.
Perhaps, but how do you release something under a license you agree to and then later say, "Uh... Sorry! Our bad!"
The thing is, no one forced SCO or Caldera to work within the GPL but I think that since everything was out in the open and signed on, they had better by God, be bound by it now.
If not, does this mean we can question MS's EULA's next? "Uh, sorry Bill, we agreed to the shrink license at the time but... Well... We changed our minds."
How is it that the press (once again) fails to run with the fact that SCO signed onto and continues to use GPL software IN THEIR OWN PRODUCT! SAMBA, GCC, and more are contained within UnixWare and yet this seemingly important and obvious fact doesn't seem to escape the tech circles.
What are you, 12 years old? At least it's more '0'riginal...
BTW, noticed that you didn't sufficiently answer any of my points. For someone who thinks they're all knowing you haven't said shit yet. Can't argue on the merits or is it just easier for you to bust on someone else's name?
Ok, I've been trolled... You are truly hopeless. Yes, I do need authentication - students here are id'd by group and user - it matters. You don't. Sorry I've wasted my time.
All right - mutually exclusive? Ignorance? To a closed mind maybe - damn, broaden your horizons. At the least, you could try for civility, or is that what you'd deem as 'equal value'?
I'm curious - how is it that you know our needs at this school so well? You obviously must understand the complexity of our group connection schedules since you are able to so easily dismiss everything I've done here.
Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it's my fault. You know, MS has been known to create more than its share of software 'features' (sometimes known as BUGS). Not to mention, it's entirely feasible that MS would purposely cripple a product for a revenue stream.
No, XP Home wasn't designed for a corporate network. Fine, its not a bug. Care to direct me to XP Education? You can't. Know why? There isn't one. MS could give a shit less about us. They throw us in with every other multibillion dollar corporation by forcing us to use MS Pro for simple domain-based authentication in a 100 user network. What the hell do my girls need with VPNs or remote terminal access (much touted features of XP Pro)? They don't, but they're going to pay for it just the same - just to get the domain access. Whether you think this is a poorly executed 'feature' on my part or highway robbery is, in fact, OPINION.
And keep in mind - this is your tax dollars at work (assuming you're old enough to PAY taxes). Think of every educational institution out there that now must run XP Pro (an extra $100 or so) simply because they want to connect more than 10 computers in a workgroup. Ludicrous!
MY opinion is that MS has crippled their product. Now as to why it's broken and why I feel as though we are being forced...
EVERY... SINGLE... VERSION of Windows since 95 and until XP has been able to authenticate to a Windows-based domain until XP Home. When we purchased Server 2000 with ISA, it was for a campus-wide solution to a difficult problem - controlled access to the Internet. It's taken Surfcontrol some three different rewrites to finally give us exactly the kind of control we wanted with ISA - just in time for MS to FUCK IT UP.
Remember - things were working just fine no matter what the students brought with them. That lasted for about 6 months until XP Home arrived with no domain authentication.
So why shouldn't I feel suckered in? We went with MS for almost everything and we're paying for it now. This is the main reason I've started to turn to Linux. There's a lot more flexibility to be found and not near as much licensing BS. Face it - you know things are messed up when the only OS out there that can't connect to a simple NT-based domain is one that MS makes itself! Shit, even the MAC can connect to MS domains now!
Nonetheless, I found a partial workaround with Mozilla for the authentication BS and the students are happy. It's not that things aren't 'working right' - they're working as right as they can under the circumstances.
Ever try to inform a Korean student's parents that her laptop needs an upgrade to XP Pro? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get this concept across to our internationals? We even had it in all our documentation this year too: "If you are using XP Home, you will need to upgrade this to XP Professional to connect to our network." I was clear as to how to go about this but nonetheless, language does get in the way. Yet another issue MS made for me that did not previously exist.
And I'm flattered that you should call me a 'lunix d00d'. Heh..
1) I've only been using Linux for two years now. I've been an MCSE trainer for over six.
2) I'm not the one who spells his online name with a '0', 't0ny'.
Just for the record, I'm not anti-MS (I had better not be - I have enough of their certificates), I may seem like it, but the truth is I only have two Linux servers against 8 MS ones. I'm just mighty pissed about the way they've ignored our needs. We're their customer after all, why not complain when we feel slighted? And why the hell not try to 'stick it to 'em' when they're doing it to us?
"Look, man. The point is that you couldnt get access to the proxy to work without validating the domain credentials. You cite this as a flaw in Microsoft's product, while I cite it as a misconfiguration."
Everything you've said so far boils down to this fact: WE DON'T AGREE. It's a matter of opinion. You may call it 'misconfiguration'. Excuse me, but HOW CAN YOU MISCONFIGURE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST (Domain authentication for XP Home)? I call it crippling a product. Difference of opinion.
MS had 95, 98, and ME configurable for domain security and for profit reasons they took it out of XP Home. I disagree with their decision and have found a way around their 'bug'. Call it what you will.
You can't 'misconfigure' something that doesn't exist, namely Domain authentication in XP Home, but I can damn sure try and work around MS's power play for more cash. That's all I'm trying to do. Mission accomplished, end of story.
Seriously, if I was stuck right now I'd be paying a hacker just get me some codez. This is similar to what happened to a company where all of its Windows XP codes were lifted off of each of their HP desktop machines.
HP disavowed any responsibility and MS refused to provide new codes. Hmmm.. What recourse do you have there even when the company is still in business?! Scary stuff this proprietary software, eh?
"Yes. And better than you, apparently, because I can get them to work without requiring domain permissions."
Yes, you're 'better' than me. Again, you ask no questions whatever and assume you've got all the answers. Obviously, I don't NEED to use domain security because it's so easy to implement and I love it so much. I'm doing it because permissions-based access here is critical. Setting up proxy without permissions is simple enough - that's by default but... YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!
"Also, jackass, you are describing NAT, not a proxy. Proxies have the ability to use NAT, but it isnt a requirement. Moron."
Wow, you're a big man being able to use two whole insults in a paragraph. Well smart boy, let me say that I AM NOT DESCRIBING NAT. If I wanted to use NAT, I'd fucking set IPCHAINS on a Linux box. I want domain-based permissions and you know what else? I want caching. That's not how NAT works, that's how a proxy works though - but you already knew that I'm sure.
"No, youre a jackass for blaming MS for your own fuckup. If you could get the proxy to work correctly, the permissions box wouldnt pop up.
Your opinion is that it is MS's fault (your opinion is wrong, but it is still an opinion). Your incompetance is in not getting it the proxy to function correctly with XP Home clients."
Again, you fail to understand our situation here - but that's ok, I just can't expect you to fully grasp anything not obvious.
ISA Proxy worked fine - as advertised, until XP came along. Every other MS OS let you join an MS domain until XP Home. You can't GET XP Home to function correctly with authentication on ISA because the client needs to be a member of the domain. Do you realize that even fucking LINUX with SAMBA 3 can connect better than MS's own product?! Why isn't that something to complain about? Why is it a crime to find a workaround like Moz? Why is this difficult for you? XP Pro is a lot more expensive and offers nothing more than connectivity for the girls here. It's a waste of their money.
"Oh, I can dig it. I just see somebody blaming MS for their lack of technical acumen. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools."
Nice quote but not relevant. Do you honestly believe that MS DID NOT cripple IE or XP Home? Well, again, that's my opinion. The proof is out there for anyone that wants to try my workaround with Moz. I guess my problem is, I never thought of our school's domain as some sort of corporate entity. What do my girls need XP Pro for otherwise? We're not General Electric but under the new licensing conditions we're being treated like we are and I resent it.
I've wasted enough time here, but I suppose it's just been for others who care to read this because you're obviously missing the entire point. If you think this issue with MS is somehow all my fault than you've learned nothing. Don't bother to reply if you're just going to continue insulting me, it's bad for the karma.
Oh I'm sorry - I thought you were referring to CONNECTIVITY to the Internet, not actually becoming a part of it. Do you understand what a proxy server is? Can I assist you with the definition? You see, a server handles the actual IP out to the Internet, and the rest of our internal users cache through it using internal IPs. Access rights are given through MS domain security. Now, one machine directly connected to the Internet is not how I would define a WAN.
In fact, a WAN is usually defined as 'A network that spans great distances. Usually comprised of many LANS'. I guess in a communal sense, everyone that accesses the Internet is in some one way a 'part of the One', but since I'm not sharing any sort of access here with anyone else, I don't think of it as a WAN in the traditional sense so pardon my 'confusion'. Also, since I'm not interested in giving my students an actual IP - that's not a great idea methinks - I'd hardly call what we have a WAN, but thanks for playing.
I'm a jackass because I'm blaming MS for CRIPPLING XP? WTF does that have to do with what an administrator does or does not do? XP Home doesn't let you connect to a domain. Fine. I think it sucks. That's opinion, not incompetance. Moz offered a way around a problem MS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
So I think I have a pretty good grip on the technical here. For some reason you just can't seem to fathom why this is an issue in the first place. Perhaps you need more experience to properly understand the nuances of a situation like this. Or perhaps better people skills would help (believe it or not, that almost always trumps technical skills for more senior positions). At any rate, for some stupid reason you decided it was actually more important to insult me first and assume I know nothing. with that attitude I'm sure you'll go far in your 'career'.
Clearly you guys must be five years old. THINK for a moment. Teenage girls? Chat? No limits at all? What, they just stay on all night - they have nothing better to do in the morning? Just what do you suppose boarding schools DO anyway?
Leave it to Slashdot to bring out every armchair administrator who feels they could do a better job. Wow - all that experience and you don't have a CLUE what's going on here. First of all, I guess you have to have a WAN first before being able to 'learn' about one, huh? Well, we don't have one. Sorry, we're not some big corporate network - just 100 users or so in ONE location.
Look, boarding schools have special needs and you'd be surprised how complex they are. This isn't a corporate/black&white environment. There's a lot of shades of grey. There are times (mainly during the day) where certain types of access isn't permitted, site filtering, monitoring, etc. and then there are the boarders who live here. Rights vary by time of day, user, group, location, you name it. Just finding a solution to meet all of our needs was painful enough without having to jump through the hoops.
All I was saying in my original post was that Moz offered a great solution for our XP Home users who were totally screwed. My suggestion is for Moz to pick up on this and run because I can think of quite a few businesses and schools that could benefit by not having to go the XP Pro route.
So, 't0ny', until you can ASK an intelligent question about what we do and how we do it - your one-liners have little meaning.
Why do some of you out there always want to make it a fight? Ask me WHY we do this or that - preferrably without derision, but don't anonymously slam without a clue because you look pretty stupid when you do so.
Hmmm.. With problem solving skills like yours I can see understand why you are anonymous. Nonetheless, I believe I pointed out my reason for using authentication in the first place was a good one - different rights for different types of users.
For instance, middle schoolers have a bedtime of 9:30. Were I to employ that school-wide across the board I'd have a riot.
Here is a reason why Linden Hall School has chosen Mozilla lately - Windows XP Home. Why? Well we use ISA with authentication as our proxy server. This enables access to various age/class groups to the Internet. The problem is - in order for there to be pass-through authentication your OS has to be a member of the MS Domain.
This never used to be an issue until XP Home. XP Home can't be joined to the domain - so all these girls that come here get a never-ending request box for authentication whenever they attempt to use their XP Home-installed home computers.
It's not that MS couldn't make this work for us (caching domain authenticated logins) - it's that they don't want to. Proof? Mozilla doesn't have a problem caching this information one time. All a student has to do is fill in the info once, check the 'save password' option, and they're good to go. IE can't do this. If you use anything that includes an MS domain authentication, it will conveniently forget it.
My only wish is that I could get Moz to default to that authentication in 'options' so that the student wouldn't even have to push the 'enter' key.
I buy your argument as it relates to the actual OPERATION of the reactor. But what about this one tiny little detail: where do you put the waste? Where does it go, and who will take responsibility for it?
Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that the people who choose to use GPL code are obligated by the rules of the license - it's not as if this is somehow hidden from public view. The author of the article treats the FSF and the GPL as if they play some sort of 'gotcha!' game. Nothing could be further from the truth. The GPL was designed by people who hated the thought of being ensnared by proprietary software - a real 'gotcha' if there ever was one. The way GPL code got to so usable and stable was because it was shared by design!
Why not focus on the fact that these criminal corporations are STEALING from thousands of individual contributors of GPL code worldwide? Linksys didn't code what they're using and they're not even being asked to PAY for it! The bargain is - they need to share what they've modified - end of story. The FSF has an obligation to stand up for the 'little guy' because... Well... Who else would? You can bet that if I took a piece of Cisco router code and put it in a "Chordsoft Router" they'd sue me for everything I had - and rightly so. I deserve to be sued for using proprietary software under their license agreement. Can't hack the terms of the agreement? Simple. DON'T USE IT!
The FSF was doing things 'in secret' - not for some dark motive, but because they didn't want to make a specticle out of corporations they are in negotiations with. Contrast this behavior with the BSA who routinely lines up companies and individuals for public inspection. Ask Ernie Ball (music manufacturer) about it sometime.
But everyone in the industry knows that GPL'd code - particularly network kernel stuff is the best there is. With so many eyes viewing, fixing, modifying, and tweaking it, it's as perfect as perfect gets. It's also very tempting for companies like Lineo and Linksys to appropriate it because it's so easy to do. But when you do the crime, shouldn't you do the time?
And pardon me, but I don't see $65,000 as a big settlement - these are reasonable costs associated with having to do this research in the first place. It's certainly not like when you have organizations like the BSA demanding MILLIONS for violations of their copyright holders.
How about a little more balance Forbes? Truly horrible 'reporting'.
Slashdot Mirror
Pray they don't find the GPL unenforceable. Yes, SCO could get sued by quite a few of these project owners, however you're missing the point:
SCO DOESN'T CARE
There's no principle in it for them here. McBride talks about getting 'square' or 'clean', but he's laughing at all of us. That's not the intent at all.
They aren't in this to prove anything other than trying to find out how much wealth the execs can aquire before it all comes crashing down. SCO WILL go down - let's hope they don't take the GPL with them.
Yeah. Based on your reply I can tell! ;)
Right back at ya, you anontroll.
That would be a valid point except that they continue to use software based on this license. If they were truly serious about challenging it, they'd almost have to stop using it altogether.
Oh yeah, #3 for sure.
:P
BTW... Am I the only one out there who thinks the Caldera icon looks like a global Mickey Mouse?
But see, the thing is, THEY SIGNED ON TO THE CONCEPT. It would be one thing if the GPL fell down out of the sky and hit them on their collective heads (oh, how I wish); but these people need to live up to their agreements. Don't forget, they continue to use and benefit from GPL'd software in UnixWare.
Perhaps, but how do you release something under a license you agree to and then later say, "Uh... Sorry! Our bad!"
The thing is, no one forced SCO or Caldera to work within the GPL but I think that since everything was out in the open and signed on, they had better by God, be bound by it now.
If not, does this mean we can question MS's EULA's next? "Uh, sorry Bill, we agreed to the shrink license at the time but... Well... We changed our minds."
You know THAT won't sure as hell happen!
Gee, thanks Sarge. I'm a LOT less yellow now! Let me at 'em!
How is it that the press (once again) fails to run with the fact that SCO signed onto and continues to use GPL software IN THEIR OWN PRODUCT! SAMBA, GCC, and more are contained within UnixWare and yet this seemingly important and obvious fact doesn't seem to escape the tech circles.
"SCO? Strong buy, strong, strong BUY!"
Wow. And to think that they had STFU for almost 2 weeks. Did the stock drop a bit? Hmmmm. Yup, they were well overdue for more outrageous statements.
"Duh, your name sucks, duh.Loser."
What are you, 12 years old? At least it's more '0'riginal...
BTW, noticed that you didn't sufficiently answer any of my points. For someone who thinks they're all knowing you haven't said shit yet. Can't argue on the merits or is it just easier for you to bust on someone else's name?
Ok, I've been trolled... You are truly hopeless. Yes, I do need authentication - students here are id'd by group and user - it matters. You don't. Sorry I've wasted my time.
All right - mutually exclusive? Ignorance? To a closed mind maybe - damn, broaden your horizons. At the least, you could try for civility, or is that what you'd deem as 'equal value'?
I'm curious - how is it that you know our needs at this school so well? You obviously must understand the complexity of our group connection schedules since you are able to so easily dismiss everything I've done here.
Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it's my fault. You know, MS has been known to create more than its share of software 'features' (sometimes known as BUGS). Not to mention, it's entirely feasible that MS would purposely cripple a product for a revenue stream.
No, XP Home wasn't designed for a corporate network. Fine, its not a bug. Care to direct me to XP Education? You can't. Know why? There isn't one. MS could give a shit less about us. They throw us in with every other multibillion dollar corporation by forcing us to use MS Pro for simple domain-based authentication in a 100 user network. What the hell do my girls need with VPNs or remote terminal access (much touted features of XP Pro)? They don't, but they're going to pay for it just the same - just to get the domain access. Whether you think this is a poorly executed 'feature' on my part or highway robbery is, in fact, OPINION.
And keep in mind - this is your tax dollars at work (assuming you're old enough to PAY taxes). Think of every educational institution out there that now must run XP Pro (an extra $100 or so) simply because they want to connect more than 10 computers in a workgroup. Ludicrous!
MY opinion is that MS has crippled their product. Now as to why it's broken and why I feel as though we are being forced...
EVERY... SINGLE... VERSION of Windows since 95 and until XP has been able to authenticate to a Windows-based domain until XP Home. When we purchased Server 2000 with ISA, it was for a campus-wide solution to a difficult problem - controlled access to the Internet. It's taken Surfcontrol some three different rewrites to finally give us exactly the kind of control we wanted with ISA - just in time for MS to FUCK IT UP.
Remember - things were working just fine no matter what the students brought with them. That lasted for about 6 months until XP Home arrived with no domain authentication.
So why shouldn't I feel suckered in? We went with MS for almost everything and we're paying for it now. This is the main reason I've started to turn to Linux. There's a lot more flexibility to be found and not near as much licensing BS. Face it - you know things are messed up when the only OS out there that can't connect to a simple NT-based domain is one that MS makes itself! Shit, even the MAC can connect to MS domains now!
Nonetheless, I found a partial workaround with Mozilla for the authentication BS and the students are happy. It's not that things aren't 'working right' - they're working as right as they can under the circumstances.
Ever try to inform a Korean student's parents that her laptop needs an upgrade to XP Pro? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get this concept across to our internationals? We even had it in all our documentation this year too: "If you are using XP Home, you will need to upgrade this to XP Professional to connect to our network." I was clear as to how to go about this but nonetheless, language does get in the way. Yet another issue MS made for me that did not previously exist.
And I'm flattered that you should call me a 'lunix d00d'. Heh..
1) I've only been using Linux for two years now. I've been an MCSE trainer for over six.
2) I'm not the one who spells his online name with a '0', 't0ny'.
Just for the record, I'm not anti-MS (I had better not be - I have enough of their certificates), I may seem like it, but the truth is I only have two Linux servers against 8 MS ones. I'm just mighty pissed about the way they've ignored our needs. We're their customer after all, why not complain when we feel slighted? And why the hell not try to 'stick it to 'em' when they're doing it to us?
Yep. Still a difference of OPINION...
"Look, man. The point is that you couldnt get access to the proxy to work without validating the domain credentials. You cite this as a flaw in Microsoft's product, while I cite it as a misconfiguration."
Everything you've said so far boils down to this fact: WE DON'T AGREE. It's a matter of opinion. You may call it 'misconfiguration'. Excuse me, but HOW CAN YOU MISCONFIGURE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST (Domain authentication for XP Home)? I call it crippling a product. Difference of opinion.
MS had 95, 98, and ME configurable for domain security and for profit reasons they took it out of XP Home. I disagree with their decision and have found a way around their 'bug'. Call it what you will.
You can't 'misconfigure' something that doesn't exist, namely Domain authentication in XP Home, but I can damn sure try and work around MS's power play for more cash. That's all I'm trying to do. Mission accomplished, end of story.
Hey! Anyone out there got a crack for Appgen?
Seriously, if I was stuck right now I'd be paying a hacker just get me some codez. This is similar to what happened to a company where all of its Windows XP codes were lifted off of each of their HP desktop machines.
HP disavowed any responsibility and MS refused to provide new codes. Hmmm.. What recourse do you have there even when the company is still in business?! Scary stuff this proprietary software, eh?
Hmmm.. More grist for the mill. Ok...
"Yes. And better than you, apparently, because I can get them to work without requiring domain permissions."
Yes, you're 'better' than me. Again, you ask no questions whatever and assume you've got all the answers. Obviously, I don't NEED to use domain security because it's so easy to implement and I love it so much. I'm doing it because permissions-based access here is critical. Setting up proxy without permissions is simple enough - that's by default but... YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!
"Also, jackass, you are describing NAT, not a proxy. Proxies have the ability to use NAT, but it isnt a requirement. Moron."
Wow, you're a big man being able to use two whole insults in a paragraph. Well smart boy, let me say that I AM NOT DESCRIBING NAT. If I wanted to use NAT, I'd fucking set IPCHAINS on a Linux box. I want domain-based permissions and you know what else? I want caching. That's not how NAT works, that's how a proxy works though - but you already knew that I'm sure.
"No, youre a jackass for blaming MS for your own fuckup. If you could get the proxy to work correctly, the permissions box wouldnt pop up.
Your opinion is that it is MS's fault (your opinion is wrong, but it is still an opinion). Your incompetance is in not getting it the proxy to function correctly with XP Home clients."
Again, you fail to understand our situation here - but that's ok, I just can't expect you to fully grasp anything not obvious.
ISA Proxy worked fine - as advertised, until XP came along. Every other MS OS let you join an MS domain until XP Home. You can't GET XP Home to function correctly with authentication on ISA because the client needs to be a member of the domain. Do you realize that even fucking LINUX with SAMBA 3 can connect better than MS's own product?! Why isn't that something to complain about? Why is it a crime to find a workaround like Moz? Why is this difficult for you? XP Pro is a lot more expensive and offers nothing more than connectivity for the girls here. It's a waste of their money.
"Oh, I can dig it. I just see somebody blaming MS for their lack of technical acumen. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools."
Nice quote but not relevant. Do you honestly believe that MS DID NOT cripple IE or XP Home? Well, again, that's my opinion. The proof is out there for anyone that wants to try my workaround with Moz. I guess my problem is, I never thought of our school's domain as some sort of corporate entity. What do my girls need XP Pro for otherwise? We're not General Electric but under the new licensing conditions we're being treated like we are and I resent it.
I've wasted enough time here, but I suppose it's just been for others who care to read this because you're obviously missing the entire point. If you think this issue with MS is somehow all my fault than you've learned nothing. Don't bother to reply if you're just going to continue insulting me, it's bad for the karma.
Oh I'm sorry - I thought you were referring to CONNECTIVITY to the Internet, not actually becoming a part of it. Do you understand what a proxy server is? Can I assist you with the definition? You see, a server handles the actual IP out to the Internet, and the rest of our internal users cache through it using internal IPs. Access rights are given through MS domain security. Now, one machine directly connected to the Internet is not how I would define a WAN.
In fact, a WAN is usually defined as 'A network that spans great distances. Usually comprised of many LANS'. I guess in a communal sense, everyone that accesses the Internet is in some one way a 'part of the One', but since I'm not sharing any sort of access here with anyone else, I don't think of it as a WAN in the traditional sense so pardon my 'confusion'. Also, since I'm not interested in giving my students an actual IP - that's not a great idea methinks - I'd hardly call what we have a WAN, but thanks for playing.
I'm a jackass because I'm blaming MS for CRIPPLING XP? WTF does that have to do with what an administrator does or does not do? XP Home doesn't let you connect to a domain. Fine. I think it sucks. That's opinion, not incompetance. Moz offered a way around a problem MS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
So I think I have a pretty good grip on the technical here. For some reason you just can't seem to fathom why this is an issue in the first place. Perhaps you need more experience to properly understand the nuances of a situation like this. Or perhaps better people skills would help (believe it or not, that almost always trumps technical skills for more senior positions). At any rate, for some stupid reason you decided it was actually more important to insult me first and assume I know nothing. with that attitude I'm sure you'll go far in your 'career'.
Clearly you guys must be five years old. THINK for a moment. Teenage girls? Chat? No limits at all? What, they just stay on all night - they have nothing better to do in the morning? Just what do you suppose boarding schools DO anyway?
Again, someone needs to THINK before posting.
OMFG.
Leave it to Slashdot to bring out every armchair administrator who feels they could do a better job. Wow - all that experience and you don't have a CLUE what's going on here. First of all, I guess you have to have a WAN first before being able to 'learn' about one, huh? Well, we don't have one. Sorry, we're not some big corporate network - just 100 users or so in ONE location.
Look, boarding schools have special needs and you'd be surprised how complex they are. This isn't a corporate/black&white environment. There's a lot of shades of grey. There are times (mainly during the day) where certain types of access isn't permitted, site filtering, monitoring, etc. and then there are the boarders who live here. Rights vary by time of day, user, group, location, you name it. Just finding a solution to meet all of our needs was painful enough without having to jump through the hoops.
All I was saying in my original post was that Moz offered a great solution for our XP Home users who were totally screwed. My suggestion is for Moz to pick up on this and run because I can think of quite a few businesses and schools that could benefit by not having to go the XP Pro route.
So, 't0ny', until you can ASK an intelligent question about what we do and how we do it - your one-liners have little meaning.
Why do some of you out there always want to make it a fight? Ask me WHY we do this or that - preferrably without derision, but don't anonymously slam without a clue because you look pretty stupid when you do so.
Hmmm.. With problem solving skills like yours I can see understand why you are anonymous. Nonetheless, I believe I pointed out my reason for using authentication in the first place was a good one - different rights for different types of users.
For instance, middle schoolers have a bedtime of 9:30. Were I to employ that school-wide across the board I'd have a riot.
How about THINKING before you post next time?
Here is a reason why Linden Hall School has chosen Mozilla lately - Windows XP Home. Why? Well we use ISA with authentication as our proxy server. This enables access to various age/class groups to the Internet. The problem is - in order for there to be pass-through authentication your OS has to be a member of the MS Domain.
This never used to be an issue until XP Home. XP Home can't be joined to the domain - so all these girls that come here get a never-ending request box for authentication whenever they attempt to use their XP Home-installed home computers.
It's not that MS couldn't make this work for us (caching domain authenticated logins) - it's that they don't want to. Proof? Mozilla doesn't have a problem caching this information one time. All a student has to do is fill in the info once, check the 'save password' option, and they're good to go. IE can't do this. If you use anything that includes an MS domain authentication, it will conveniently forget it.
My only wish is that I could get Moz to default to that authentication in 'options' so that the student wouldn't even have to push the 'enter' key.
Again, thanks Moz devs!
I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm simply stating a point of fact. Very few people seem to care about air pollution more than nuclear waste.
Either way, it's pollution, but the human perception is that 'a little Diesel won't kill ya.' The problem here is political, not scientific.
I buy your argument as it relates to the actual OPERATION of the reactor. But what about this one tiny little detail: where do you put the waste? Where does it go, and who will take responsibility for it?
To me that's not ignorant, it's common sense.
But it's not - and the point isn't about piracy at all. It's more about living up to the obligations YOU AGREED TO in the first place!
Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that the people who choose to use GPL code are obligated by the rules of the license - it's not as if this is somehow hidden from public view. The author of the article treats the FSF and the GPL as if they play some sort of 'gotcha!' game. Nothing could be further from the truth. The GPL was designed by people who hated the thought of being ensnared by proprietary software - a real 'gotcha' if there ever was one. The way GPL code got to so usable and stable was because it was shared by design!
Why not focus on the fact that these criminal corporations are STEALING from thousands of individual contributors of GPL code worldwide? Linksys didn't code what they're using and they're not even being asked to PAY for it! The bargain is - they need to share what they've modified - end of story. The FSF has an obligation to stand up for the 'little guy' because... Well... Who else would? You can bet that if I took a piece of Cisco router code and put it in a "Chordsoft Router" they'd sue me for everything I had - and rightly so. I deserve to be sued for using proprietary software under their license agreement. Can't hack the terms of the agreement? Simple. DON'T USE IT!
The FSF was doing things 'in secret' - not for some dark motive, but because they didn't want to make a specticle out of corporations they are in negotiations with. Contrast this behavior with the BSA who routinely lines up companies and individuals for public inspection. Ask Ernie Ball (music manufacturer) about it sometime.
But everyone in the industry knows that GPL'd code - particularly network kernel stuff is the best there is. With so many eyes viewing, fixing, modifying, and tweaking it, it's as perfect as perfect gets. It's also very tempting for companies like Lineo and Linksys to appropriate it because it's so easy to do. But when you do the crime, shouldn't you do the time?
And pardon me, but I don't see $65,000 as a big settlement - these are reasonable costs associated with having to do this research in the first place. It's certainly not like when you have organizations like the BSA demanding MILLIONS for violations of their copyright holders.
How about a little more balance Forbes? Truly horrible 'reporting'.