Typical. If there was any doubt that the whole MS/Novell thing was an anti-Linux FUD PR campaign to save Vista now that the SCO case is of no use for that anymore, this should remove it. Note that they're using this as a PR opportunity to pressure other Linux vendors to get on the "Microsoft Tax" bandwagon. At all reminiscent of SCO offering Linux licenses for sale? When will Microsoft produce a product that they actually believe in, i.e., that they don't think needs anticompetitive tactics for it to succeed?
Someone ought to do a media expose' and actually hire a spamming company to send out a campaign, and then measure what kind of response they actually get. Given the look of many of the campaigns out there (from looking at the subject lines captured by my spam filter), I can't imagine what kind of complete idiot would fall for any of them. Quite possibly, it's not those getting spammed who are being taken, but the people who contracting a spammer for a spamvertising campaign that are. If it turns out that in 1G spam mails the return rate is only 3 morons who actually clicked-through the darn things, and that information became public, the value of such a campaign might just drop considerably and the financial incentive would go away...
I always find this attitude entertaining. if the christians are right and you do go to hell you will be busy writhing around in agony to proudly do anything. and those who make it to heaven will be to busy basking in the glory of God to notice that their family didn't make it. Remember if the christians are right then you have to use their idea of heaven and hell not yours. Also it doesn't matter if you find the christian god morally reprehensible or not. if he exists and has that power then he exists and has that power. you not agreeing with it doesn't make it untrue.
At least I will keep my self respect. Fear of punishment or hope for reward is not reason enough to accept your silly superstitions.
If "God" is "morality" then either he's essentially a machine and theoretically unnecessary (morality being completely logical and potentially derivable without God), or he has free will and therefore morality is whimsical. Good is good because God says it is, or Good is good because there is a logical basis behind it. I suppose you'll try to argue that "God" is logic as well, but the same argument applies, he's either equivalent to a mechanism or logic is whimsy. Apologetic attempts to merge logic, morality and God into one entity only undermine the characteristics of one or more of those-- logic is mechanical, morality is logical, God is moralty, thus God is automaton.
WRT universal moral principles, what are they?-- something that must be rationally discovered, like the principles of mathematics or the elements of the atom. Not an easy task, but that is what they are. Where do they come from? From logic and rationality, i.e., thought. While a "supreme" being, if one exists, might be able to utilize its powers to shortcut the path to finding them, it can only be the vehicle, not the source.
Microsoft research does try to tackle such problems, the dilemma is that their work, as far as I can tell, seems to get ignored when it comes to product development and marketing. What fundamental problems in modern computing is Microsoft research trying to tackle?
All that stuff is great, but if you can't create basic functionality that is simple and robust, sophisticated new developments are pretty useless. That is in fact, Microsoft's ongoing problem-- they're so busy working on the future that they don't spend the time necessary to make the present work very well. No doubt the future is far more interesting, but how you deal with the present is what gets you your reputation.
Or more to the point, my complaint with Microsoft over the last few years is that they seem to have been spending more money on figuring out how to restrict my use of their products, and not very much money on figuring out how to make my life easier.
Bill Gates loves puzzles. It's clear he thinks you should too.
Even if Christians are correct, I find their deity morally reprehensible-- while their God may have the power to absolve sins, it would be immoral for me to accept such absolution. Might makes right is not a valid basis for morality-- even a Christian God must be subject to universal moral principles, else the basis of morality is whimsical. Consequently, God-- xtian or otherwise, can have no moral authority to absolve, as the concept itself is anti-moral.
So to answer your question, Yes, if the Christians are right, I will march off to Hell proudly. However, I expect that it is you who, allowed to enter the Christian Heaven, but without many of your loved ones who didn't believe, who will have found the true hell.
Actually, at this point, Microsoft would no doubt prefer that the SCO case would go away. It's dangerously close to concluding and thereby demonstrating that Linux is safe from infringement claims. The SCO case has done it's job in spreading FUD, now it's time for Novell to take over. Novell moving to scuttle the case before it's natural conclusion by claiming that the case is moot because Novell (who actually owns the copyright) says that if there is infringement it's OK, is completely consistent with Microsoft saying, if there's patent infringement in Linux it's OK if you buy it from Novell.
On the other hand, Novell's management ought to take a good look at how SCO's is doing right now-- they could be looking at their own future. Then again, if Darl has gotten some kind of financial bonus out of all this, perhaps its the future they want.
More and more my tolerance for advertising and my ability to screen them out has increased. I've had a PO box for years, where I don't get junk mail. I've been using a smart proxy-based ad blocker that works quite well on web sites for several years now. I get my news from the web and the ad blockers completely eliminate all ads, popup or otherwise. I haven't read a newspaper or magazine for years now. I don't watch commercial TV or even cable anymore, now that ads have taken over those as well. I could get a Tivo, but I prefer to buy used or discounted DVDs for my media watching. I rarely go to the movie theater-- and even there you can avoid the ads if you show up a minuite or two late. I shop for groceries at Trader Joes where they aren't looking to put in TV displays and place ads on everything, even the conveyor belt dividers. Everything else I shop for I do it online, targeted via Google. Google has ads but so low-key I don't really notice them. My email has a great bayesian-plus spam filter. I hardly ever see ads-- they so rarely make it through my screening filters that it is always a surprise if one does-- and usually such a surprise that I'm more focused on finding out how it did it than looking at what the darn thing is.
Madison Avenue can take a flying leap-- I slam the door on their foot. If you're funded by ad revenue, I say, simply-- GET A JOB, BUM! (Guess that applies to./ as well)...
Why is it everytime there's a consensus about something we don't like to accept, there are the usual gang of usual suspects out there catering to our fears? Afraid of a 6 billon year old world? Creationists. Afraid of space miliarization/the future? Moon landing deniers. Afraid of the free market? Communists. Afraid of disease? Homeopathy. Afraid of secular education? Home Schoolers.
Afraid of terrorists? The Patriot Act. Afraid of terrorists? NSA Wiretaps. Afraid of terrorists? RFID Passports....
I can only conclude that we are a Nation of Cowards.
I knew I was getting old when I first realized that these kids today with their modern legos have it too easy, what with all those crazy custom pieces. Why, when I was a kid, we had to use our imagination to build stuff.
Yeah-- Erector sets were like that too at one time. Check out what they're like now. You get a set, and it's designed to build one thing. It's more like a model kit than a building set. It's obvious why, that way you have to buy more stuff-- if you had a totally generic building set you'd never need anything else, and we can't have that, can we?
These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to. Because they don't get this, they raise prices to cover what they lose...and so the spiral continues upward.
If you bothered to buy the music from real stores (online, or at a shop), then maybe we'd be seeing some cheaper prices for CD's etc.
Support the artists....not the pirates !
The thing is, the companies the RIAA represents are essentially pirates too! As long as independents can't get space on radio because of payola and monopolistic practices, and artists aren't getting their fair share of digital media taxes and other royalties (see: here) frankly I just can't get too excited about illegal music downloads. I say, download the music illegally and send the artist a check for it directly-- bypass the pirate middlemen, whether it's AllofMP3 or RIAA corporations...
I presume he must have gotten a bank account in Japan, else what "bank worker" would have noticed anything in that country? Why didn't he use a bank account from his own country? The whole thing was internet-based commerce, what does it have to do with Japan, except that is where he happened to be at the time? If I went to Japan, even if it were on a student visa, wouldn't I just keep on using the same bank I'm using now? And if the transactions were online-- I'd probably use Paypal or something, and all the relevant services would have no idea I wasn't still in the USA. Of course, I'd probably need to think about paying US taxes on the profits...
If Linux was produced by a commercial company as a proprietary product and Ballmer made such a statement about it-- would that not constitute some legal problem for them if Microsoft didn't then act on it? The longer they wait the less legal standing they might have because they "knew" about it yet did nothing.
Also, can you simply accuse someone of committing a crime in order to cast aspersions, yet do nothing other than that about it? It's tantamount to liable I would think-- but if the only one who could have *proof* of the claim is the one making the claim, yet no proof is offered, how could one defend against such potentially frivolous liable claims?
Somehow I think they're treading on thin ice here if they don't actually plan to sue-- and if they do they'd better shut up and get with it. Certainly if they don't act but just continue to make such claims I would think there would be anti-trust implications. It's like making the claim that "Procter and Gamble makes unsafe products," without being any more specific of what product is being referred to or why they are unsafe. While the statement may even be true if interpreted in a certain way (eating Procter and Gamble's soap could be unsafe, even if they specifically warn you not to eat it), I think P&G would set the lawyers on them if their biggest competitor started making such a claim all over the airwaves...
I think, just because Linux isn't a "corporation" like P&G is, doesn't mean that there aren't people who "own" it and could sue for damages. Sure, it's GPL, but that doesn't mean noone owns it, or everyone does, that's just the licensing. And a class-action suit by those who make money even indirectly from Linux might have something to say about it as well...
On the other hand, they may only be looking for short-term negative effects, now that the SCO suit is fizzling and Vista is at a critical stage, any kind of cloud of FUD they can produce and send towards Linux would be an advantage-- except that I would think they're at some risk here if they don't plan to start the legal proceedings rolling (and they're at some risk even if they do)...
To Ballmer-- SHUT UP AND COMPETE. I guess you don't have the confidence that Vista is a better OS than Linux and can readily compete on its merits, and therefore found the need to resort to such underhanded claims Consequently, it looks to me that you've already lost the battle and I can't see why anyone would want Vista given such an utter lack of confidence you are showing in it.
The basic problem isn't the algorithm they choose. It's that their goal is incompatible with security.
They wish to establish a world where all people can be instantly identified, correlated with commercial profiles, and tracked wherever they travel.
How can this be done "securely"? It cannot.
It may depend on what the definition of "security" is. Who's security, in particular.
Tracking the populace in order to make it easier for government to identify terrorists or other miscreants can enhance security for government even if at the same time it represents a new exposure for individuals. Sure, the government is made up of individuals, but if you are in control of the primary tracking systems, it may mitigate the insecurity of your own personal ID tag-- and government entities could exempt themselves from the requirement of carrying such a tagged ID, or automatically erase any recorded history of their own IDs movements.
A government would like to have the ability to analyze "who was where when this happened?" Certainly useful in identifying who was associating with what terrorists after an event occurs-- allowing some significant traceback if there is a past record of people's movements.
Then you have to ask, what value would this information have to someone else-- could tracking specific individuals help in committing bank fraud, or simple robbery (hey-- look who's out of the country right now-- good time to break in)? Quite possibly-- but you then have to ask, does the government individual who is in charge of the ID system care all that much if their own personal security isn't affected?
And of course, by this argument, it is government which represents the biggest security threat to individuals...
Yes, in order to capitalize on Linux popularity, MS could sell "insurance" to their own customers who also use Linux. However, in order to keep such a gravy train going, they ultimately would have to sue some Linux party for infringement, else their customers eventually question "why are we paying for this?" But in actually filing a case against something in Linux, they risk 1) losing the suit, and thereby the entire sordid scheme, 2) payback infringement suits against them from parties like IBM, 3) lots of bad will, and 4) a resurgence of pressure for anti-trust actions. In any event, it's their own customers that would end up feeling fleeced by Microsoft in the process. This is about as good an idea as was invading Iraq over WMDs.
In the 20th century, the railroads were monopolized by Carnegie and then he charged his competition extra for their use of the platform for shipping oil, a business that Carnegie was also in. Microsoft has similarly utilized its monopolization of the desktop computer platform to restrict its competition's ability to compete with it in other, non-OS areas.
The greedheads just keep making these same mistakes over and over:
1. Doctors have their degree in medicine, not business management, and many hate doing the management side of the business. An opportunity? Perhaps, but don't forget the rest of these points when evaluating that "opportunity."
2. Doctors aren't as enamoured with technology as you think they are.
3. Doctors don't have as much money to spend as you think they do.
4. Most practices do not have on-site IT experts, so things like maintaining a local web site or web tie-in server is next to impossible. Most practices can't even keep their regular backups straight. If you sell them their practice software, YOU are their IT department. If you can convince them that what you offer is worth the inflated maintenance contract price you'd have to charge for all these features, great, but Good Luck, because:
5. Doctors don't have as much money to spend as you think they do.
It's been my impression that as long as when you update to a new release you keep all the old library versions, Linux is pretty backwards compatible. I'm still running binaries that were built on 0.9 on the 2.6 kernel-- though my/lib directories are getting pretty darn huge...
Slashdot Mirror
How is that any different than the state of Open Source Software?
Probably because "Open Source Software" has never pretended to be otherwise?
Or more likely, because "Open Source Software" isn't trying to control how you use it.
Typical. If there was any doubt that the whole MS/Novell thing was an anti-Linux FUD PR campaign to save Vista now that the SCO case is of no use for that anymore, this should remove it. Note that they're using this as a PR opportunity to pressure other Linux vendors to get on the "Microsoft Tax" bandwagon. At all reminiscent of SCO offering Linux licenses for sale? When will Microsoft produce a product that they actually believe in, i.e., that they don't think needs anticompetitive tactics for it to succeed?
Someone ought to do a media expose' and actually hire a spamming company to send out a campaign, and then measure what kind of response they actually get. Given the look of many of the campaigns out there (from looking at the subject lines captured by my spam filter), I can't imagine what kind of complete idiot would fall for any of them. Quite possibly, it's not those getting spammed who are being taken, but the people who contracting a spammer for a spamvertising campaign that are. If it turns out that in 1G spam mails the return rate is only 3 morons who actually clicked-through the darn things, and that information became public, the value of such a campaign might just drop considerably and the financial incentive would go away...
...it's illegal to make the TSA look stupid?
I want to surf for light polluting cities. Do any of these satellite map sites give you the nighttime images?
I always find this attitude entertaining. if the christians are right and you do go to hell you will be busy writhing around in agony to proudly do anything. and those who make it to heaven will be to busy basking in the glory of God to notice that their family didn't make it. Remember if the christians are right then you have to use their idea of heaven and hell not yours. Also it doesn't matter if you find the christian god morally reprehensible or not. if he exists and has that power then he exists and has that power. you not agreeing with it doesn't make it untrue.
At least I will keep my self respect. Fear of punishment or hope for reward is not reason enough to accept your silly superstitions.
God as moral automaton.
If "God" is "morality" then either he's essentially a machine and theoretically unnecessary (morality being completely logical and potentially derivable without God), or he has free will and therefore morality is whimsical. Good is good because God says it is, or Good is good because there is a logical basis behind it. I suppose you'll try to argue that "God" is logic as well, but the same argument applies, he's either equivalent to a mechanism or logic is whimsy. Apologetic attempts to merge logic, morality and God into one entity only undermine the characteristics of one or more of those-- logic is mechanical, morality is logical, God is moralty, thus God is automaton.
WRT universal moral principles, what are they?-- something that must be rationally discovered, like the principles of mathematics or the elements of the atom. Not an easy task, but that is what they are. Where do they come from? From logic and rationality, i.e., thought. While a "supreme" being, if one exists, might be able to utilize its powers to shortcut the path to finding them, it can only be the vehicle, not the source.
Microsoft research does try to tackle such problems, the dilemma is that their work, as far as I can tell, seems to get ignored when it comes to product development and marketing. What fundamental problems in modern computing is Microsoft research trying to tackle?
All that stuff is great, but if you can't create basic functionality that is simple and robust, sophisticated new developments are pretty useless. That is in fact, Microsoft's ongoing problem-- they're so busy working on the future that they don't spend the time necessary to make the present work very well. No doubt the future is far more interesting, but how you deal with the present is what gets you your reputation.
Or more to the point, my complaint with Microsoft over the last few years is that they seem to have been spending more money on figuring out how to restrict my use of their products, and not very much money on figuring out how to make my life easier.
Bill Gates loves puzzles. It's clear he thinks you should too.
Even if Christians are correct, I find their deity morally reprehensible-- while their God may have the power to absolve sins, it would be immoral for me to accept such absolution. Might makes right is not a valid basis for morality-- even a Christian God must be subject to universal moral principles, else the basis of morality is whimsical. Consequently, God-- xtian or otherwise, can have no moral authority to absolve, as the concept itself is anti-moral.
So to answer your question, Yes, if the Christians are right, I will march off to Hell proudly. However, I expect that it is you who, allowed to enter the Christian Heaven, but without many of your loved ones who didn't believe, who will have found the true hell.
Actually, at this point, Microsoft would no doubt prefer that the SCO case would go away. It's dangerously close to concluding and thereby demonstrating that Linux is safe from infringement claims. The SCO case has done it's job in spreading FUD, now it's time for Novell to take over. Novell moving to scuttle the case before it's natural conclusion by claiming that the case is moot because Novell (who actually owns the copyright) says that if there is infringement it's OK, is completely consistent with Microsoft saying, if there's patent infringement in Linux it's OK if you buy it from Novell.
On the other hand, Novell's management ought to take a good look at how SCO's is doing right now-- they could be looking at their own future. Then again, if Darl has gotten some kind of financial bonus out of all this, perhaps its the future they want.
More and more my tolerance for advertising and my ability to screen them out has increased. I've had a PO box for years, where I don't get junk mail. I've been using a smart proxy-based ad blocker that works quite well on web sites for several years now. I get my news from the web and the ad blockers completely eliminate all ads, popup or otherwise. I haven't read a newspaper or magazine for years now. I don't watch commercial TV or even cable anymore, now that ads have taken over those as well. I could get a Tivo, but I prefer to buy used or discounted DVDs for my media watching. I rarely go to the movie theater-- and even there you can avoid the ads if you show up a minuite or two late. I shop for groceries at Trader Joes where they aren't looking to put in TV displays and place ads on everything, even the conveyor belt dividers. Everything else I shop for I do it online, targeted via Google. Google has ads but so low-key I don't really notice them. My email has a great bayesian-plus spam filter. I hardly ever see ads-- they so rarely make it through my screening filters that it is always a surprise if one does-- and usually such a surprise that I'm more focused on finding out how it did it than looking at what the darn thing is.
Madison Avenue can take a flying leap-- I slam the door on their foot. If you're funded by ad revenue, I say, simply-- GET A JOB, BUM! (Guess that applies to ./ as well)...
Why is it everytime there's a consensus about something we don't like to accept, there are the usual gang of usual suspects out there catering to our fears? Afraid of a 6 billon year old world? Creationists. Afraid of space miliarization/the future? Moon landing deniers. Afraid of the free market? Communists. Afraid of disease? Homeopathy. Afraid of secular education? Home Schoolers.
Afraid of terrorists? The Patriot Act. Afraid of terrorists? NSA Wiretaps. Afraid of terrorists? RFID Passports....
I can only conclude that we are a Nation of Cowards.
I knew I was getting old when I first realized that these kids today with their modern legos have it too easy, what with all those crazy custom pieces. Why, when I was a kid, we had to use our imagination to build stuff.
Yeah-- Erector sets were like that too at one time. Check out what they're like now. You get a set, and it's designed to build one thing. It's more like a model kit than a building set. It's obvious why, that way you have to buy more stuff-- if you had a totally generic building set you'd never need anything else, and we can't have that, can we?
These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to. Because they don't get this, they raise prices to cover what they lose...and so the spiral continues upward. If you bothered to buy the music from real stores (online, or at a shop), then maybe we'd be seeing some cheaper prices for CD's etc.
Support the artists....not the pirates !
The thing is, the companies the RIAA represents are essentially pirates too! As long as independents can't get space on radio because of payola and monopolistic practices, and artists aren't getting their fair share of digital media taxes and other royalties (see: here) frankly I just can't get too excited about illegal music downloads. I say, download the music illegally and send the artist a check for it directly-- bypass the pirate middlemen, whether it's AllofMP3 or RIAA corporations...
I presume he must have gotten a bank account in Japan, else what "bank worker" would have noticed anything in that country? Why didn't he use a bank account from his own country? The whole thing was internet-based commerce, what does it have to do with Japan, except that is where he happened to be at the time? If I went to Japan, even if it were on a student visa, wouldn't I just keep on using the same bank I'm using now? And if the transactions were online-- I'd probably use Paypal or something, and all the relevant services would have no idea I wasn't still in the USA. Of course, I'd probably need to think about paying US taxes on the profits...
If Linux was produced by a commercial company as a proprietary product and Ballmer made such a statement about it-- would that not constitute some legal problem for them if Microsoft didn't then act on it? The longer they wait the less legal standing they might have because they "knew" about it yet did nothing.
Also, can you simply accuse someone of committing a crime in order to cast aspersions, yet do nothing other than that about it? It's tantamount to liable I would think-- but if the only one who could have *proof* of the claim is the one making the claim, yet no proof is offered, how could one defend against such potentially frivolous liable claims?
Somehow I think they're treading on thin ice here if they don't actually plan to sue-- and if they do they'd better shut up and get with it. Certainly if they don't act but just continue to make such claims I would think there would be anti-trust implications. It's like making the claim that "Procter and Gamble makes unsafe products," without being any more specific of what product is being referred to or why they are unsafe. While the statement may even be true if interpreted in a certain way (eating Procter and Gamble's soap could be unsafe, even if they specifically warn you not to eat it), I think P&G would set the lawyers on them if their biggest competitor started making such a claim all over the airwaves...
I think, just because Linux isn't a "corporation" like P&G is, doesn't mean that there aren't people who "own" it and could sue for damages. Sure, it's GPL, but that doesn't mean noone owns it, or everyone does, that's just the licensing. And a class-action suit by those who make money even indirectly from Linux might have something to say about it as well...
On the other hand, they may only be looking for short-term negative effects, now that the SCO suit is fizzling and Vista is at a critical stage, any kind of cloud of FUD they can produce and send towards Linux would be an advantage-- except that I would think they're at some risk here if they don't plan to start the legal proceedings rolling (and they're at some risk even if they do)...
To Ballmer-- SHUT UP AND COMPETE. I guess you don't have the confidence that Vista is a better OS than Linux and can readily compete on its merits, and therefore found the need to resort to such underhanded claims Consequently, it looks to me that you've already lost the battle and I can't see why anyone would want Vista given such an utter lack of confidence you are showing in it.
The basic problem isn't the algorithm they choose. It's that their goal is incompatible with security.
They wish to establish a world where all people can be instantly identified, correlated with commercial profiles, and tracked wherever they travel.
How can this be done "securely"? It cannot.
It may depend on what the definition of "security" is. Who's security, in particular.
Tracking the populace in order to make it easier for government to identify terrorists or other miscreants can enhance security for government even if at the same time it represents a new exposure for individuals. Sure, the government is made up of individuals, but if you are in control of the primary tracking systems, it may mitigate the insecurity of your own personal ID tag-- and government entities could exempt themselves from the requirement of carrying such a tagged ID, or automatically erase any recorded history of their own IDs movements.
A government would like to have the ability to analyze "who was where when this happened?" Certainly useful in identifying who was associating with what terrorists after an event occurs-- allowing some significant traceback if there is a past record of people's movements.
Then you have to ask, what value would this information have to someone else-- could tracking specific individuals help in committing bank fraud, or simple robbery (hey-- look who's out of the country right now-- good time to break in)? Quite possibly-- but you then have to ask, does the government individual who is in charge of the ID system care all that much if their own personal security isn't affected?
And of course, by this argument, it is government which represents the biggest security threat to individuals...
Yes, in order to capitalize on Linux popularity, MS could sell "insurance" to their own customers who also use Linux. However, in order to keep such a gravy train going, they ultimately would have to sue some Linux party for infringement, else their customers eventually question "why are we paying for this?" But in actually filing a case against something in Linux, they risk 1) losing the suit, and thereby the entire sordid scheme, 2) payback infringement suits against them from parties like IBM, 3) lots of bad will, and 4) a resurgence of pressure for anti-trust actions. In any event, it's their own customers that would end up feeling fleeced by Microsoft in the process. This is about as good an idea as was invading Iraq over WMDs.
In the 20th century, the railroads were monopolized by Carnegie and then he charged his competition extra for their use of the platform for shipping oil, a business that Carnegie was also in. Microsoft has similarly utilized its monopolization of the desktop computer platform to restrict its competition's ability to compete with it in other, non-OS areas.
The greedheads just keep making these same mistakes over and over:
1. Doctors have their degree in medicine, not business management, and many hate doing the management side of the business. An opportunity? Perhaps, but don't forget the rest of these points when evaluating that "opportunity."2. Doctors aren't as enamoured with technology as you think they are.
3. Doctors don't have as much money to spend as you think they do.
4. Most practices do not have on-site IT experts, so things like maintaining a local web site or web tie-in server is next to impossible. Most practices can't even keep their regular backups straight. If you sell them their practice software, YOU are their IT department. If you can convince them that what you offer is worth the inflated maintenance contract price you'd have to charge for all these features, great, but Good Luck, because:
5. Doctors don't have as much money to spend as you think they do.
It's been my impression that as long as when you update to a new release you keep all the old library versions, Linux is pretty backwards compatible. I'm still running binaries that were built on 0.9 on the 2.6 kernel-- though my /lib directories are getting pretty darn huge...
"You have 5 seconds to comply..."
Yeah, but when you can't get 'em through Customs, might as well spend 'em on Linux FUD...
Makes just about as much sense...