Well, I have no idea how to reply, as you did not address any of the content of what I said.
Still, I'd like to point out that it's not so much control of the machine you have a problem with, it's the fact that people unable to control their machines have them attached to the internet.
Depending on every single user to be individually conscientious about security is a bad plan.
He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security?
This is my point though. I don't know you. Why should I trust that you are as concerned about security as you say you are?
You don't have to.. unless you're using his computers. Or are you concerned about his computers being on the internet? So you want internet connectivity service to be free and open, but you want the actual devices that folks pay for outright to be locked down? Seems you have that backwards.
Not everyone needs nor should have the power to do anything with their computer, because that power will be used for malicious ends without the user's awareness. Experience has demonstrated this conclusively.
Nonsense. Other responders to this post claim you don't get the point. I think you get the point just fine, but maybe you're just not that bright. Or don't care about your own rights.
Who are you, or the manufacturer or OS-creating-company to determine that I shouldn't have the power to do what I want with a piece of equipment that I own outright?
However, you may not be that far off-base, just mis-aimed. Maybe what you're upset about is that not every person should be allowed to do whatever they want when and where it will affect others. So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.
Or maybe, just maybe, in the real world... IBM is a corporation. And so is Novell. So, while some corporations are more or less evil than others (arguably), they're still corporations, and really don't care about your conception of what the world should be like.
I'm not sure I managed to fully parse your mis-typings, but you do realize that SUSE is, if anything, MORE open now that Novell bought it than it ever was before?
The only program that really does this is evolution (and of course Outlook).
Right. Because Groupwise can't do this. Or Scalix. Nope, only Outlook.
Just saying evolution would have been ignorant, but forgivable, since you would have possibly been talking only about open source options. When you tossed in Outlook...
Is either correct, or are both approaching the situation from the wrong angle?"
Quite simply, they're both coming at it from the angle of their own revenue streams. There's no right and wrong, you just need to choose whose pile of money you're talking about.
You know, there seems to be a lot of comments about 'those silly cops' or such, who don't understand the licensing. But before we all start pointing and laughing, I *really* wish someone would explain the license to the developers using it. I can't explain how much it exasperates me that I have to click 'I Accept the GPL' box to install so many GPL'd apps..
The Computer Science department, however is ran by very well rounded individuals that know wtf they are talking about. All the good people end up being teachers, and assholes end up maintaining the backend,
Bwuhahahahahahah.... Good one! Most especially the part about the teachers being the ones that know what they're talking about.
Oh lord, I needed a good laugh. Thank you.
You fail to realize that you make a piss-poor analogy.
The developer who is developing OSS project XYZ "free of charge" is likely doing it for a purpose important to him/herself. Whether it's for their own use or for some other purpose they deem appropriate motivation, it's something for them. Selfish? Maybe, but not in the typical sense. While they're likely creating it for a purpose that is 'selfish' on some level, point is that they don't then keep it for ONLY that purpose. They then let others have it for their own purposes as well.
What precisely is in it for the person donating their time to implement it for a *business*? Maybe it would be different if you had mentioned doing it for a charity or non-profit, but you didn't. Because you know as well as I do, that you'd have received myriad responses from folks who HAD done that. Doing free work for a *business* (directly, rather than as an indirect consquence of doing something for yourself) is nothing short of stupidity.
Mind you, I can fathom cases where it might be advantageous for a particular person to implement a particular package(s) for a particular business or three. But that then would answer the 'what is in it for them' question. Additionally, these are going to be the exception rather than the rule.
I'm only a student, not a systems administrator so I wouldn't pretend to suggest I know what's acceptable and what's not, but this would piss me off if I knew someone was doing this to me. I imagine this kind of behaviour should be kept under one's hat
This would be because you're a student. Students tend to think they have some right to a network and every network resource they can imagine. They don't. On the other hand, the administrator has the responsibility of making sure the network and it's resources are working and available for ALL of it's appropriate uses.
I started to read the comments on this article, and got disgusted even more quickly than usual. Maybe it is time for a new slashdot with geeks instead of morons that have their heads up theit butt and think they're cool.
First of all, anyone that uses a Lexmark or an HP inkjet deserves the screwing they're getting. Because that's what they're getting, and with a little bit of sense, they could have known that before buying.
If you want to talk about sensible photo printing on an inkjet, you're talking Epson. And Canon has decided to come play in that game too.
Now, does that mean that printing your own prints with Epson/Canon is cheaper than Costco? No (at least not for 4x6). But the difference in price isn't nearly as huge as with the other brands. And your prints WILL be higher quality, and quite possibly have all the longevity. Of course, this assumes something about your ability to pick papers and print settings..
Beyond that, there's lots of other factors. But lord...
Re:Talking out both sides of out mouths.
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's monopoly means it has to play by different rules
That's the key point that so many Microsoft apologists around here seem to miss. Microsoft doesn't get to play by the same rules. Sorry. Maybe they should have played nice in the first place, if they don't like the different set of rules thing...
Slashdot Mirror
Still, I'd like to point out that it's not so much control of the machine you have a problem with, it's the fact that people unable to control their machines have them attached to the internet.
He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security?
You don't have to.. unless you're using his computers. Or are you concerned about his computers being on the internet? So you want internet connectivity service to be free and open, but you want the actual devices that folks pay for outright to be locked down? Seems you have that backwards.
Nonsense. Other responders to this post claim you don't get the point. I think you get the point just fine, but maybe you're just not that bright. Or don't care about your own rights.
Who are you, or the manufacturer or OS-creating-company to determine that I shouldn't have the power to do what I want with a piece of equipment that I own outright?
However, you may not be that far off-base, just mis-aimed. Maybe what you're upset about is that not every person should be allowed to do whatever they want when and where it will affect others. So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.
Or maybe, just maybe, in the real world... IBM is a corporation. And so is Novell. So, while some corporations are more or less evil than others (arguably), they're still corporations, and really don't care about your conception of what the world should be like.
Trying to sound smart isn't the same thing as being smart. http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_developers Hate on Sony all you want, just hate accurately.
For the love of all that is digital, don't buy any 3Com crap.
Hrmm... I wonder why you have problems with your IT department?
"One of the larger companies in the States" ? Eh?
Or maybe the number 1 or 2 largest company in the world, depending on the day?
You, sir, are absolutely correct. I am saddened that I don't have mod points to counter the 'flamebait' someone modded you as.
And what about when IT isn't given the resources to accomplish that 'more work'? It's still somehow the responsibility of this poster to do it anyway?
I'm glad you've never had to work in such a situation. But don't assume no one else has to.
I'm not sure I managed to fully parse your mis-typings, but you do realize that SUSE is, if anything, MORE open now that Novell bought it than it ever was before?
Right. Because Groupwise can't do this. Or Scalix. Nope, only Outlook.
Just saying evolution would have been ignorant, but forgivable, since you would have possibly been talking only about open source options. When you tossed in Outlook...
HAHAHAhahah.. girlfriend. Good one.
Quite simply, they're both coming at it from the angle of their own revenue streams. There's no right and wrong, you just need to choose whose pile of money you're talking about.
Kinda my thoughts.. Sounds like RedHat is trying to play catchup to Novell/Suse.
You know, there seems to be a lot of comments about 'those silly cops' or such, who don't understand the licensing. But before we all start pointing and laughing, I *really* wish someone would explain the license to the developers using it. I can't explain how much it exasperates me that I have to click 'I Accept the GPL' box to install so many GPL'd apps..
You must not have ever met a DL380. :)
The developer who is developing OSS project XYZ "free of charge" is likely doing it for a purpose important to him/herself. Whether it's for their own use or for some other purpose they deem appropriate motivation, it's something for them. Selfish? Maybe, but not in the typical sense. While they're likely creating it for a purpose that is 'selfish' on some level, point is that they don't then keep it for ONLY that purpose. They then let others have it for their own purposes as well.
What precisely is in it for the person donating their time to implement it for a *business*? Maybe it would be different if you had mentioned doing it for a charity or non-profit, but you didn't. Because you know as well as I do, that you'd have received myriad responses from folks who HAD done that. Doing free work for a *business* (directly, rather than as an indirect consquence of doing something for yourself) is nothing short of stupidity.
Mind you, I can fathom cases where it might be advantageous for a particular person to implement a particular package(s) for a particular business or three. But that then would answer the 'what is in it for them' question. Additionally, these are going to be the exception rather than the rule.
Just because you wish it, doesn't make it so.
This would be because you're a student. Students tend to think they have some right to a network and every network resource they can imagine. They don't. On the other hand, the administrator has the responsibility of making sure the network and it's resources are working and available for ALL of it's appropriate uses.
I started to read the comments on this article, and got disgusted even more quickly than usual. Maybe it is time for a new slashdot with geeks instead of morons that have their heads up theit butt and think they're cool.
First of all, anyone that uses a Lexmark or an HP inkjet deserves the screwing they're getting. Because that's what they're getting, and with a little bit of sense, they could have known that before buying.
If you want to talk about sensible photo printing on an inkjet, you're talking Epson. And Canon has decided to come play in that game too.
Now, does that mean that printing your own prints with Epson/Canon is cheaper than Costco? No (at least not for 4x6). But the difference in price isn't nearly as huge as with the other brands. And your prints WILL be higher quality, and quite possibly have all the longevity. Of course, this assumes something about your ability to pick papers and print settings..
Beyond that, there's lots of other factors. But lord...
It's eDirectory these days, rather than NDS. And as for group policies and so much more, see ZENWorks.