That will let your mail server appear to be running on port 25000 also (without needing to change any configuration files for it).
Set up SASL-based authentication (I personally use the rimap mechanism of saslauthd, but there are many other options), have her configure Outlook to connect on port 25000 and to authenticate outgoing mail, let that port through your firewall, and you're good to go.
What you have to keep in mind is that the situation you are trying to preserve (messages from your domain can be sent from any compliant mail server) also lets anyone else pretend to send mail from your domain.
SPF is designed to prevent this, so saying it doesn't work with your current setup is kind of the point.
The problem is that if their player contains GPL code, then:
1) The rest of the player must also be released under the GPL, per its conditions.
2) Failure to release the player under the GPL means they do not have a license to use the code they've already distributed, as they have violated the terms under which they were granted the license.
3) Distributing copyrighted code without a license equals copyright violation, and damages can be assessed.
Ignorance is not a defense. They must either release any previous versions that used GPL code under the GPL, or prepare to pay damages.
Assuming the GPL is not a valid license, KISS never had a license to use the mplayer code in the first place, and therefore they are certainly violating copyright. Nor, in that case, do they have the option of releasing under the GPL to make the problem go away.
This last point is probably why you don't see many people challenging the validity of the GPL -- invalidating the license gets you into even deeper trouble.
As a side note, I thought that Windows 2000 was supposed to be on an entirely new kernel, not relying on ancient COMMAND.COM code.
On NT systems, "command.com" gets executed in the NTVDM environment. NTVDM is the "NT Virtual DOS Machine", also known as WOW ("Windows on Windows"). It is used for executing legacy applications.
One point of interest is that the "command.com" program is little more than a wrapper that actually uses "cmd.exe" to perform most of the functions.
Also, cmd.exe and command.com are shells, not kernels.
If you think your going to get more than one static, public IP(v4/v6) address, you're an idiot. Very few ISPs explicitly allow more than one computer per account. And almost none provide static addresses -- even if your DSL/cablemodem has held the same address for months, it's still dynamic and subject to change.
I get six static IP addresses with my Speakeasy account, four of which are "free" as part of my particular plan.
In marked contrast to other ISPs, I'm not even sure Speakeasy provide dynamic IPs (maybe if you request it...), let alone gives them to you by default.
I saw this article over lunch today, and when I checked back just now I noticed they'd removed the page of benchmarks. One of the interesting results shown was that the Athlon 64 FX-51 managed to beat this overclocked behemoth in a couple tests.
Only one or two, mind you, but it still boggles the mind that this Pentium running 2.5x faster than the Athlon chip didn't utterly dominate all comers.
Given the history of THG and their decidedly negative (some might say Intel-funded) view of the Athlon 64 chips, it's not particularly surprising they'd choose to pull that page, but it does cast further doubt on the continued relevance of what was once a high-quality tech reporting site.
The few posts questioning this on the THG forums seem to have disappeared in the time it took me to write this. Strange...
One of the pieces of scrap had operated without intervention as their DSL internet gateway, firewall, name server, intranet and email server for four years. Being Debian Linux, it had given itself security updates, too.
Debian automatically restarts affected services after applying security updates, in every case?
Does it automatically reboot the machine when it upgrades the kernel also?
I suspect the answer is "no", so it's entirely possible that this server running unattended for four years was a significant security hole in its own right.
IANAL, but I do not think it is quite as clear-cut as you state.
Ultimately contracts exist to demonstrate that there was a "meeting of the minds" between two parties, to stipulate services to be rendered, obligations to be fulfilled, and payments to be handed out.
Deceptive phrasing such as you suggest would probably be looked at askance by a judge. If a term is ambiguous from a legal standpoint then it customary to include a definition in close proximity to that term.
Burying such a significant departure from the normal meaning of "God" deep inside boilerplate disclaimers certainly suggests that one of the parties was not negotiating in good faith. This could be sufficient to demonstrate that no mutual assent existed.
Generally speaking the purpose of laws is to ensure fairness and even-dealing, not to force everyone to become a lawyer or watch out for hidden legal snares.
Well, obviously it's your money and you can spend it how you please.
But I doubt very many waiters are going to go out of their way to slight you. Chances are if they're not coming by the table too often, they are simply overworked.
Consider, too, that many people don't particularly enjoy being interrupted by a waiter every five minutes so that he can pour two sips worth of Coke into each person's glass.
I imagine that it's something of a fine line to walk, between being overly solicitous and conspicuously absent. I personally prefer fewer interruptions, so it's quite possible that our opinions of acceptable service levels are significantly different.
As to why you should pay it: simply because you're eating at a restaurant, and like it or not, tips are the reality of food service in America (assuming you are in America). Without tips the waiter is most likely not making a particularly attractive wage, perhaps not even a livable one.
At the very least if you are going to short someone on a tip, you should speak to the management about why you found the service lacking. If the reason's not worth the effort to relate to their boss, is it worth making the waiter feel bad over a couple bucks?
(Disclaimer: I have never been a waiter, nor have I worked in a restaurant.)
It could be because of assholes like you that they don't enjoy their job to begin with.
Tipping is not optional. Only the lowest extremes of poor customer service can possibly justify not leaving a tip.
Not leaving a tip (*minimum* of 15%) means you're a cheap bastard. You might be fine with that, who knows, but don't try to invent lame excuses like "the waiter didn't smile enough" to cover your miserly behavior.
Thank you, thank you for posting this link. If I had karma points I would lavish them on you (well, up to the max of one, at least).
Posts like this are the reason I read/. : to get clued in to cool new programs like ultr@vnc.
It's got kind of a stupid name, but what an awesome feature set.
What this story neglects to mention is that Vonage also lowered the cost of both levels of their residential service:
Our Premium Unlimited Plan, which was $39.99, is now reduced to a monthly rate of $34.99. Our Unlimited Local Plan is reduced from $25.99 to $24.99. Your new lower rates will appear on your next bill automatically. There is nothing required on your part to take advantage of this cost reduction.
Obviously the added tax sucks -- though I imagine the people here complaining most about it don't actually use Vonage -- but I think it's difficult to make an intelligent case that Vonage is trying to maximize profits.
Blizzard has been around a _lot_ longer than just since 1997.
In the case you mention, they were not trying to stop pirates, they were obtaining names and email addresses for the purpose of supporting their Starcraft customers who were having issues connecting to Battle.net.
Nor did they stop because they were "criticized", they stopped because they lost a lawsuit over it.
In more recent years, to better judge the hardware capabilities of their customer base, they've started an opt-in program where general information about your computer system can be collected and submitted to Blizzard while applying patches to their software.
So in a sense they're still collecting similar information, with the main difference being that no individualized information is gathered and it is entirely opt-in -- you can apply the patch regardless of your choice.
And more than likely the "litigious and scammy" party here was the lawyer who brought the lawsuit. Undeniably Blizzard was in the wrong, but barring any evidence suggesting that their intentions were malicious, I think it's safe to say that ultimately they had their customers' best interests at heart.
Oh sure, criticize them for supporting a platform that probably doesn't exceed 1% of their userbase.
Yes, in a perfect world, Blizzard would have been able to ship the Mac version simultaneously with the PC version.
Oh wait, they did, with Warcraft III.
But let's never let them forget that this one time, years ago, when they were first supporting the platform, it took them ages to port it. Because that's a really productive way to spend our time, and it certainly sends the right message to other companies who might be considering a port of their latest game.
The same sort of thing has happened with Bioware's Neverwinter Nights -- a promised Linux port, lengthy development process post-release, and now it's close to being available. Does this suck for Linux users? Sure. But at least you get the game eventually, and you can bet that Bioware will have portability at the top of the priority list next time around.
You get the idea. The hard part is using these additional possibilities in an intelligent fashion. That's not something quantum computing alone is going solve.
I run a Squid proxy for my personal use. Although it will (very rarely) serve me stale data, in Internet Explorer I have always been able to force a genuine refresh by pressing ctrl-F5. I think this works in Mozilla as well.
Squid pays attention to this directive; other proxy software sometimes ignores it. YMMV.
games which won't work with certain CD drives thanks to the way the Safedisk copy protection system works,
I am going to second this point, as it truly is one of my pet peeves.
The new Securom 4 is absolutely awful about this. I have many friends whose brand new games will not play because Securom tries to do things with their brand new CD-ROM drives that those drives just don't handle well.
What are these customers supposed to do? Buy a new CD-ROM drive? What if that one doesn't work either?
The one solid workaround that I have found is to use Daemon Tools in conjunction with a product like Alcohol 120% to create a perfect MDS image of the CD.
Let's face it. With names like "Daemon Tools" and "Alcohol" these products are clearly not targetting your casual software buyer, who is just as likely as a pirate to be locked out of a game he legally purchased. They won't know what's going on, they just know that their game doesn't work 90% of the time. Oh, and good luck returning that opened software if they simply can't get it to work at all.
The irony here is that anyone who makes an effort to play games illegally is probably familiar with these tools, which is to say precisely the people Safedisc, Securom and others are trying to stop.
Most asinine of all is that the games which have CD-keys and are more or less entirely multiplayer oriented -- Warcraft 3, Unreal Tournament 2003 -- have for some reason adopted the most bleeding edge versions of Securom. Anyone serious about the game is going to need a legitimate copy of the game in order to have a valid CD key! Why force them to have the real CD inserted as well?
So far Bioware, with Neverwinter Nights, gets my award for the most clued-in company in this regard. NWN shipped with Securom 4 support, which was almost immediately disabled by the first patch.
I only wish Blizzard would do the same for Warcraft 3, so I could stop explaining to my friends that everyone gets those "Please insert the game CD" messages, and that their options are: repeatedly click 'OK' until the stars align properly and the game decides you're not evil; or, use an MDS image with Daemon Tools and you won't have any more trouble.
Nowhere did I say that advancements in technology or transitions to more advanced hardware were impossible or undesirable. I am only saying that supporting legacy stuff is not "evil" and it's actually in pretty much everyone's best interest.
Hint: do it right, and 90% of the consumers won't even know about the sweeping revisions.
I agree, and I'd venture to say this is another way of arguing my point: it's OK to change things, as long as you don't change them so much that all previous investment in the technology is worthless.
But it's clear we're referring to different kinds of "sweeping revisions." The parent of my comment asserted:
"hardware would be faster, cleaner, easier to use, and downright sexier if legacy stuff didn't have to be supported."
Cutting off support for legacy hardware/software is what I was referring to. To my knowledge OSX can still run many Mac Classic apps. Would you like it if Apple said, "you know all that software you bought for your system? None of it will work now. Buy OSX enabled versions instead. Oh and the vendor may not have an OSX version yet. Kindly wait a few years for it to be ported. Thanks."
What if you went out and bought a new PC motherboard, and discovered that none of your old PCI cards would work, that they'd changed the audio connectors to SPDIF inputs/outputs and that only USB keyboards and mice could be used?
Sure, it might mean that overall the system was "cleaner" or "sexier" and perhaps even performed better. And yes, USB is an improvement over PS/2. But if all you had were analog speakers and PS/2 keyboards and mice and regular PCI cards, you might be a little irritated to find that equipment that had served you well and still worked fine was no longer useable. At that point you might be tempted to say, "no thanks, I don't want the hypothetical performance increase or the theoretical purity of this new architecture, I'd rather be able to use my existing stuff."
This is a reality that new technologies simply can't ignore. People vastly prefer steady improvements to revolutionary redesigns, especially if each redesign means they have to spend money buying things they already had.
I think you're mistaken. Itanium and Itanium2 have dedicated logic to run x86 code. They don't emulate x86 code, they actually run it.
I think you're right. I have no idea where I got the notion that the Itanium 2 had a Celeron more or less integrated to handle x86 software. It did seem ridiculous to claim a full-blown Celeron was on the actual chip, so I fudged something in there about it being a coprocessor.
But I guess my main point was, as you say, the Itanium actually runs x86 code rather than emulating it. x86 support is hardware based, though by all accounts I can find, the performance still sucks, and seems to be comparable to early Celeron chips at this point.
Intel, of course, is making exactly the same mistake by attempting to emulate x86 modes on the Itaniums.
Because of its abysmal performance, Intel has abandoned this approach and now uses a Celeron coprocessor to handle x86 software execution.
Take Intel CPUs. They're a kludge. A terrible, messy, evil kludge. And they're a kludge because they have to support legacy applications that ran on the 8086.
Even though this is quite a popular sentiment on/., the reality is that consumers and businesses don't want their computers to be some sort of Platonic ideal of a perfect machine. They just want the damn things to work reliably, chock full of "evil kludges" or not.
So the attitude you're propagating, that older is bad and anything supporting something older is therefore also bad, is pretty much not a viable approach to the economic realities at work here. You seem to think that sweeping revisions and corrections that throw out the work of previous generations are justified, but really all they would do is anger users and create chaos. It might be faster, cleaner, easier to use, and sexier, but it also be much less useful simply because there wouldn't be any software that ran on it.
And you can argue that it's the principle of the matter, and that we shouldn't compromise our ideals just because they are unworkable in the market. But keep in mind that computers are a tool, not a religion, however tempting it may be to categorize them as such, and it's a bit silly to attach an ideology and a morality ("evil kludges" indeed!) to tools.
Re:For the geeks...
on
Infinite Games?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Also, NC State is in Raleigh, and Epic (creators of the Unreal engine) is also based in Raleigh.
While I am sure the reasons you've given are equally if not more important, I think having the development team for the engine you're using a short distance from campus certainly doesn't hurt anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Using iptables on Linux, you can redirect any connections on one port to a different one:
iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 25000 -j REDIRECT --to-port 25
That will let your mail server appear to be running on port 25000 also (without needing to change any configuration files for it).
Set up SASL-based authentication (I personally use the rimap mechanism of saslauthd, but there are many other options), have her configure Outlook to connect on port 25000 and to authenticate outgoing mail, let that port through your firewall, and you're good to go.
What you have to keep in mind is that the situation you are trying to preserve (messages from your domain can be sent from any compliant mail server) also lets anyone else pretend to send mail from your domain.
SPF is designed to prevent this, so saying it doesn't work with your current setup is kind of the point.
1) The rest of the player must also be released under the GPL, per its conditions.
2) Failure to release the player under the GPL means they do not have a license to use the code they've already distributed, as they have violated the terms under which they were granted the license.
3) Distributing copyrighted code without a license equals copyright violation, and damages can be assessed.
Ignorance is not a defense. They must either release any previous versions that used GPL code under the GPL, or prepare to pay damages.
Assuming the GPL is not a valid license, KISS never had a license to use the mplayer code in the first place, and therefore they are certainly violating copyright. Nor, in that case, do they have the option of releasing under the GPL to make the problem go away.
This last point is probably why you don't see many people challenging the validity of the GPL -- invalidating the license gets you into even deeper trouble.
On NT systems, "command.com" gets executed in the NTVDM environment. NTVDM is the "NT Virtual DOS Machine", also known as WOW ("Windows on Windows"). It is used for executing legacy applications.
One point of interest is that the "command.com" program is little more than a wrapper that actually uses "cmd.exe" to perform most of the functions.
Also, cmd.exe and command.com are shells, not kernels.
Just FYI.
In marked contrast to other ISPs, I'm not even sure Speakeasy provide dynamic IPs (maybe if you request it...), let alone gives them to you by default.
Not all ISPs are greedy or evil.
Thus it's not so wildly off the mark to compare that generalization to one about storage density increases.
Only one or two, mind you, but it still boggles the mind that this Pentium running 2.5x faster than the Athlon chip didn't utterly dominate all comers.
Given the history of THG and their decidedly negative (some might say Intel-funded) view of the Athlon 64 chips, it's not particularly surprising they'd choose to pull that page, but it does cast further doubt on the continued relevance of what was once a high-quality tech reporting site.
The few posts questioning this on the THG forums seem to have disappeared in the time it took me to write this. Strange...
Debian automatically restarts affected services after applying security updates, in every case?
Does it automatically reboot the machine when it upgrades the kernel also?
I suspect the answer is "no", so it's entirely possible that this server running unattended for four years was a significant security hole in its own right.
It was only a couple days later that Firebird was released, right? Right?
Good thing operating systems are so much simpler than web browsers.
Ultimately contracts exist to demonstrate that there was a "meeting of the minds" between two parties, to stipulate services to be rendered, obligations to be fulfilled, and payments to be handed out.
Deceptive phrasing such as you suggest would probably be looked at askance by a judge. If a term is ambiguous from a legal standpoint then it customary to include a definition in close proximity to that term.
Burying such a significant departure from the normal meaning of "God" deep inside boilerplate disclaimers certainly suggests that one of the parties was not negotiating in good faith. This could be sufficient to demonstrate that no mutual assent existed.
Generally speaking the purpose of laws is to ensure fairness and even-dealing, not to force everyone to become a lawyer or watch out for hidden legal snares.
But I doubt very many waiters are going to go out of their way to slight you. Chances are if they're not coming by the table too often, they are simply overworked.
Consider, too, that many people don't particularly enjoy being interrupted by a waiter every five minutes so that he can pour two sips worth of Coke into each person's glass.
I imagine that it's something of a fine line to walk, between being overly solicitous and conspicuously absent. I personally prefer fewer interruptions, so it's quite possible that our opinions of acceptable service levels are significantly different.
As to why you should pay it: simply because you're eating at a restaurant, and like it or not, tips are the reality of food service in America (assuming you are in America). Without tips the waiter is most likely not making a particularly attractive wage, perhaps not even a livable one.
At the very least if you are going to short someone on a tip, you should speak to the management about why you found the service lacking. If the reason's not worth the effort to relate to their boss, is it worth making the waiter feel bad over a couple bucks?
(Disclaimer: I have never been a waiter, nor have I worked in a restaurant.) It could be because of assholes like you that they don't enjoy their job to begin with. Tipping is not optional. Only the lowest extremes of poor customer service can possibly justify not leaving a tip. Not leaving a tip (*minimum* of 15%) means you're a cheap bastard. You might be fine with that, who knows, but don't try to invent lame excuses like "the waiter didn't smile enough" to cover your miserly behavior.
Thank you, thank you for posting this link. If I had karma points I would lavish them on you (well, up to the max of one, at least). Posts like this are the reason I read /. : to get clued in to cool new programs like ultr@vnc.
It's got kind of a stupid name, but what an awesome feature set.
Cisco already bought Linksys.
Microsoft hacked! Code stolen?
I would probably have left out al-Mutanabbi. Nothing personal, Al, but I've never heard of you before.
What this story neglects to mention is that Vonage also lowered the cost of both levels of their residential service:
Obviously the added tax sucks -- though I imagine the people here complaining most about it don't actually use Vonage -- but I think it's difficult to make an intelligent case that Vonage is trying to maximize profits.
In the case you mention, they were not trying to stop pirates, they were obtaining names and email addresses for the purpose of supporting their Starcraft customers who were having issues connecting to Battle.net.
Nor did they stop because they were "criticized", they stopped because they lost a lawsuit over it.
Relevant link.
In more recent years, to better judge the hardware capabilities of their customer base, they've started an opt-in program where general information about your computer system can be collected and submitted to Blizzard while applying patches to their software.
So in a sense they're still collecting similar information, with the main difference being that no individualized information is gathered and it is entirely opt-in -- you can apply the patch regardless of your choice.
And more than likely the "litigious and scammy" party here was the lawyer who brought the lawsuit. Undeniably Blizzard was in the wrong, but barring any evidence suggesting that their intentions were malicious, I think it's safe to say that ultimately they had their customers' best interests at heart.
Yes, in a perfect world, Blizzard would have been able to ship the Mac version simultaneously with the PC version.
Oh wait, they did, with Warcraft III.
But let's never let them forget that this one time, years ago, when they were first supporting the platform, it took them ages to port it. Because that's a really productive way to spend our time, and it certainly sends the right message to other companies who might be considering a port of their latest game.
The same sort of thing has happened with Bioware's Neverwinter Nights -- a promised Linux port, lengthy development process post-release, and now it's close to being available. Does this suck for Linux users? Sure. But at least you get the game eventually, and you can bet that Bioware will have portability at the top of the priority list next time around.
You can achieve a similar effect already just by using two (or more) bits instead of one for your booleans:
00: False
01: Partly False
10: Partly True
11: True
You get the idea. The hard part is using these additional possibilities in an intelligent fashion. That's not something quantum computing alone is going solve.
Squid pays attention to this directive; other proxy software sometimes ignores it. YMMV.
I am going to second this point, as it truly is one of my pet peeves.
The new Securom 4 is absolutely awful about this. I have many friends whose brand new games will not play because Securom tries to do things with their brand new CD-ROM drives that those drives just don't handle well.
What are these customers supposed to do? Buy a new CD-ROM drive? What if that one doesn't work either?
The one solid workaround that I have found is to use Daemon Tools in conjunction with a product like Alcohol 120% to create a perfect MDS image of the CD.
Let's face it. With names like "Daemon Tools" and "Alcohol" these products are clearly not targetting your casual software buyer, who is just as likely as a pirate to be locked out of a game he legally purchased. They won't know what's going on, they just know that their game doesn't work 90% of the time. Oh, and good luck returning that opened software if they simply can't get it to work at all.
The irony here is that anyone who makes an effort to play games illegally is probably familiar with these tools, which is to say precisely the people Safedisc, Securom and others are trying to stop.
Most asinine of all is that the games which have CD-keys and are more or less entirely multiplayer oriented -- Warcraft 3, Unreal Tournament 2003 -- have for some reason adopted the most bleeding edge versions of Securom. Anyone serious about the game is going to need a legitimate copy of the game in order to have a valid CD key! Why force them to have the real CD inserted as well?
So far Bioware, with Neverwinter Nights, gets my award for the most clued-in company in this regard. NWN shipped with Securom 4 support, which was almost immediately disabled by the first patch.
I only wish Blizzard would do the same for Warcraft 3, so I could stop explaining to my friends that everyone gets those "Please insert the game CD" messages, and that their options are: repeatedly click 'OK' until the stars align properly and the game decides you're not evil; or, use an MDS image with Daemon Tools and you won't have any more trouble.
Hint: do it right, and 90% of the consumers won't even know about the sweeping revisions.
I agree, and I'd venture to say this is another way of arguing my point: it's OK to change things, as long as you don't change them so much that all previous investment in the technology is worthless.
But it's clear we're referring to different kinds of "sweeping revisions." The parent of my comment asserted:
"hardware would be faster, cleaner, easier to use, and downright sexier if legacy stuff didn't have to be supported."
Cutting off support for legacy hardware/software is what I was referring to. To my knowledge OSX can still run many Mac Classic apps. Would you like it if Apple said, "you know all that software you bought for your system? None of it will work now. Buy OSX enabled versions instead. Oh and the vendor may not have an OSX version yet. Kindly wait a few years for it to be ported. Thanks."
What if you went out and bought a new PC motherboard, and discovered that none of your old PCI cards would work, that they'd changed the audio connectors to SPDIF inputs/outputs and that only USB keyboards and mice could be used?
Sure, it might mean that overall the system was "cleaner" or "sexier" and perhaps even performed better. And yes, USB is an improvement over PS/2. But if all you had were analog speakers and PS/2 keyboards and mice and regular PCI cards, you might be a little irritated to find that equipment that had served you well and still worked fine was no longer useable. At that point you might be tempted to say, "no thanks, I don't want the hypothetical performance increase or the theoretical purity of this new architecture, I'd rather be able to use my existing stuff."
This is a reality that new technologies simply can't ignore. People vastly prefer steady improvements to revolutionary redesigns, especially if each redesign means they have to spend money buying things they already had.
I think you're right. I have no idea where I got the notion that the Itanium 2 had a Celeron more or less integrated to handle x86 software. It did seem ridiculous to claim a full-blown Celeron was on the actual chip, so I fudged something in there about it being a coprocessor.
But I guess my main point was, as you say, the Itanium actually runs x86 code rather than emulating it. x86 support is hardware based, though by all accounts I can find, the performance still sucks, and seems to be comparable to early Celeron chips at this point.
Intel, of course, is making exactly the same mistake by attempting to emulate x86 modes on the Itaniums.
Because of its abysmal performance, Intel has abandoned this approach and now uses a Celeron coprocessor to handle x86 software execution.
Take Intel CPUs. They're a kludge. A terrible, messy, evil kludge. And they're a kludge because they have to support legacy applications that ran on the 8086.
Even though this is quite a popular sentiment on /., the reality is that consumers and businesses don't want their computers to be some sort of Platonic ideal of a perfect machine. They just want the damn things to work reliably, chock full of "evil kludges" or not.
So the attitude you're propagating, that older is bad and anything supporting something older is therefore also bad, is pretty much not a viable approach to the economic realities at work here. You seem to think that sweeping revisions and corrections that throw out the work of previous generations are justified, but really all they would do is anger users and create chaos. It might be faster, cleaner, easier to use, and sexier, but it also be much less useful simply because there wouldn't be any software that ran on it.
And you can argue that it's the principle of the matter, and that we shouldn't compromise our ideals just because they are unworkable in the market. But keep in mind that computers are a tool, not a religion, however tempting it may be to categorize them as such, and it's a bit silly to attach an ideology and a morality ("evil kludges" indeed!) to tools.
While I am sure the reasons you've given are equally if not more important, I think having the development team for the engine you're using a short distance from campus certainly doesn't hurt anything.