Install preware, do the fixes to turn down logging and clock the processor up to it's native speed (thus, I hesitate to call it overclock) and stop whining about the browser.
WebOS is very nice, but then Android on it is nice too. Personally, I'm excited to see ICS on it..
Amen. I can't figure out if the seemingly high amount of support I see for WP7 online is astroturfing or teenagers that don't understand who Microsoft was and is.
Welcome to a small taste of your game, Microsoft.
These comments are all over the place, so I'd like to add another random 5 cents...
Having worked in education, I have an unexpected observation for you: Teachers are one of the single most unteachable groups of people around.
So, that complicates things.:)
When was the first Sony portable music player released, and when was the first one that supported anything other than Sony's proprietary formats released?
That's certainly a possibility that occurred to me, although I would hope they'd have put an 'editors note' had they done it. At any rate, my comment is aimed at whatever party did the obfuscating.:)
Let me get this straight. You claim a company has intentionally wronged you via dirty business practices, and you want to protect them by leaving their name out?
"The burden is on Mr. Torvalds"... "The issue appears to be"... "a loophole in the GPL"
See, you've went and done it again. Whether there's a loophole in the GPL or not is of no concern to Linus, unless it offends his sensibilities with regards to Linux. The GPL isn't his personal cause to sit around wondering if there are flaws in and how to go about mending them. That's what RMS is for. And might I add, I'd give Linus a pat on the back for not wanting to be another RMS.
What exactly does Mr. Torvalds not like about the GPL3? Is there a good reason from him not to like the GPL3? I don't know. Those are the issues, and the only ones that really matter.
Eh? Why is the burden upon Torvalds here? There's a new GPL, but why should he care? I think in the past he has stated quite clearly that he has no interest, unlike RMS, in enforcing all of his views on everyone that may use his software. GPLv2 fits that bill quite nicely. Why should he have to screw with examining the inane and insane legal details of a more complicated follow-up version to a license that, so far as he is concerned, serves him perfectly?
If I had to take a guess, without having anything more than the insufficient information I have now, I would guess that Mr. Stallman knows more about legal issues than Mr. Torvalds because Mr. Stallman has been thinking about software licensing intensely since before 1983, and he has hired lawyers to help him.
Again, I have no doubt that Torvalds realizes that Stallman knows more about legal issues than himself. But I'm guessing he doesn't give a rat's ass.
Funny, that's NOT the quote you gave the first time around. Wave your hands all you want, it doesn't make your lies truth.
'Whatever IT designates it for' is by definition what the University designates it for. If the University truly has some IT department that has hijacked the network, then they have the power to change the people in the department. And again, I make no defense for CCA. What I make defense for is the action taken as a result of a DIRECT and INTENTIONAL violation of AGREED UPON terms. It's a simple concept that has absolutely nothing to do with technology. You can't see that because you're so blinded by your technological prowess and hatred of those who would prevent you from playing with your tech toys.
I do not know about this University and this IT department. But I KNOW in others, it's just as likely that year after year after year that the IT department has been denied the resources it requires to successfully provide a fraction of the services demanded of it (even if those 'requires resources' were for decisions/solutions that even you would agree with). In a situation like that, you will end up with 'rules' that don't seem to make sense upon first inspection, as well as a technological infrastructure that has seemingly incompetent things going on, like half of the computers in engineering not working, or some such as that.
And guess what? The fact that the University TOOK the action of dismissing the student means that, at least on some level, they AGREE with what the department is doing. So don't present it as if the wild west IT department dismissed this student all upon their own authority or something. If there were a juxtapositioning of what the University wanted and what IT was doing, they sure as hell wouldn't have dismissed a student upon IT's request.
Now... that all having been said... most of the time many of the people working in any given IT department ARE morons making idiotic decisions, whether idiotic things have been forced upon them from above or not. So when evaluated with the ACTUAL situation in this case, there's as good a chance that we're both arguing for absolutely no reason as there is that one of us is right, in relationship to this case.
Wow, and you call me pompous. I especially like the part where you "quote" me, and in fact I never said that.
Again, your points sound great on the surface, but they make the assumption that you know more about their environment that they do, on top of other arrogant assumptions.
I'm neither defending CCA or even Universities. But for the love of electrons, *you* need to get a grip. The University took the exact right action in this case. The student did the exact wrong thing. Sorry.
I have read some of the most inane and unintelligent drivel on this thread. Unfortunately, some of it disguised as thought-out responses. The scary part is that these might actually have been "thought out".
Also, it is not clear that it "violates university policy" to write such a program, if you're a computer major, and your class work involves looking at vulnerabilities in software - which is what he learned in class. Then again, those who can, do - those who can't - teach.
Huh? So you think that because he's a computer major, the _production_ network is his personal playground? NO. The production network is only for precisely whatever IT designates it for. And all their policies are not in place just to piss you off. You may not know the reasons they're in place, and they may or may not be good reasons, but there are probably actual reasons. And those reasons probably have a whole lot more history and politics behind them than you realize.
Additionally, has it occurred to you that the reason only Windows computers were required to run the CCA client is because they're the only computers that could potentially cause the kind of problems that CCA is designed to help prevent? And additionally, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what you think of the policies, you don't get to ignore them just because you don't like them. And 20 minutes to get on the network sucks, but then a network with haxxored windows boxen on it sucks even more. And as for the Symantec thing.. you think the IT department automatically has the resources to support any software package you want to use in any manner you want to use it?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't do it. How hard is that?
Shame on the developers for rolling over like that.
I'm sorry, what do you think Steve's contribution to the Amiga 1000 was?
And there is capitalism for you. Success is defined by how much money you make, it doesn't matter what you do in the process.
Install preware, do the fixes to turn down logging and clock the processor up to it's native speed (thus, I hesitate to call it overclock) and stop whining about the browser. WebOS is very nice, but then Android on it is nice too. Personally, I'm excited to see ICS on it..
I am saddened for you that you think you're a nerd and you call the iPhone "the real thing".
Amen. I can't figure out if the seemingly high amount of support I see for WP7 online is astroturfing or teenagers that don't understand who Microsoft was and is. Welcome to a small taste of your game, Microsoft.
Focus on backwards compatibility? They *dropped compatibility* and the ability to install from anwhere. What are you talking about?
These comments are all over the place, so I'd like to add another random 5 cents... Having worked in education, I have an unexpected observation for you: Teachers are one of the single most unteachable groups of people around. So, that complicates things. :)
That's not the top 3, that's 1, 2 and 4.
When was the first Sony portable music player released, and when was the first one that supported anything other than Sony's proprietary formats released?
Uhm, 1979 and 1979? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman#Cassette-based_walkman
I applaud your reply.
dirXML is still available, they just call it Identity Manager now.
You realize that RedHat is NOT the core OS under ESX, right?
Well, a simple google search shows that this post of yours proves you an idiot. Too bad you got moderated insightful.
That's certainly a possibility that occurred to me, although I would hope they'd have put an 'editors note' had they done it. At any rate, my comment is aimed at whatever party did the obfuscating. :)
Let me get this straight. You claim a company has intentionally wronged you via dirty business practices, and you want to protect them by leaving their name out?
Seems like good intentions gone wrong.
"The burden is on Mr. Torvalds" ... "The issue appears to be" ... "a loophole in the GPL"
See, you've went and done it again. Whether there's a loophole in the GPL or not is of no concern to Linus, unless it offends his sensibilities with regards to Linux. The GPL isn't his personal cause to sit around wondering if there are flaws in and how to go about mending them. That's what RMS is for. And might I add, I'd give Linus a pat on the back for not wanting to be another RMS.
I've never encountered anyone who has actually used ZENworks who thinks it's crap. ZENworks is a darn cool piece of software.
Novell ZENworks, and more specifically, the Desktop Management piece of it.
Your quote that I was referring to was this:
"hacking a production network."*I* never said that. *I* never used the word 'hacking', period. You lie, again.
'Whatever IT designates it for' is by definition what the University designates it for. If the University truly has some IT department that has hijacked the network, then they have the power to change the people in the department. And again, I make no defense for CCA. What I make defense for is the action taken as a result of a DIRECT and INTENTIONAL violation of AGREED UPON terms. It's a simple concept that has absolutely nothing to do with technology. You can't see that because you're so blinded by your technological prowess and hatred of those who would prevent you from playing with your tech toys.
I do not know about this University and this IT department. But I KNOW in others, it's just as likely that year after year after year that the IT department has been denied the resources it requires to successfully provide a fraction of the services demanded of it (even if those 'requires resources' were for decisions/solutions that even you would agree with). In a situation like that, you will end up with 'rules' that don't seem to make sense upon first inspection, as well as a technological infrastructure that has seemingly incompetent things going on, like half of the computers in engineering not working, or some such as that.
And guess what? The fact that the University TOOK the action of dismissing the student means that, at least on some level, they AGREE with what the department is doing. So don't present it as if the wild west IT department dismissed this student all upon their own authority or something. If there were a juxtapositioning of what the University wanted and what IT was doing, they sure as hell wouldn't have dismissed a student upon IT's request.
Now... that all having been said... most of the time many of the people working in any given IT department ARE morons making idiotic decisions, whether idiotic things have been forced upon them from above or not. So when evaluated with the ACTUAL situation in this case, there's as good a chance that we're both arguing for absolutely no reason as there is that one of us is right, in relationship to this case.
Again, your points sound great on the surface, but they make the assumption that you know more about their environment that they do, on top of other arrogant assumptions.
I'm neither defending CCA or even Universities. But for the love of electrons, *you* need to get a grip. The University took the exact right action in this case. The student did the exact wrong thing. Sorry.
Huh? So you think that because he's a computer major, the _production_ network is his personal playground? NO. The production network is only for precisely whatever IT designates it for. And all their policies are not in place just to piss you off. You may not know the reasons they're in place, and they may or may not be good reasons, but there are probably actual reasons. And those reasons probably have a whole lot more history and politics behind them than you realize.
Additionally, has it occurred to you that the reason only Windows computers were required to run the CCA client is because they're the only computers that could potentially cause the kind of problems that CCA is designed to help prevent? And additionally, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what you think of the policies, you don't get to ignore them just because you don't like them. And 20 minutes to get on the network sucks, but then a network with haxxored windows boxen on it sucks even more. And as for the Symantec thing.. you think the IT department automatically has the resources to support any software package you want to use in any manner you want to use it?
Grow up