You or anyone else can form an opinion of me on each of those points and you might decide I'm not the sort of person you would want to hire. That's a valid judgment for you to make. You might consider me morally lax or unrealistically idealistic or just annoying:) any of those is valid reason for you to choose against me.
Exactly, I can refuse to hire people simply because of there association with another company. Such as ex-Exxon, Enron, Target, but I think I would be a better person/Company if I posted it, so they would know up front (possibly argue with me about it), instead of throwing them in the circular round file. It also sends a message to employees about expectations within the company.
So exactly when do you walk out? When they find out the company is using pirated software? How much? When they poison neighbors with chemicals? How many should die or become ill first? When they steal money from people through acts of fraud? What is fraudulent behavior? Is it legally manipulating the books to appear profitable? Is it advertising that the product you sell will protect you from monetary damages and then in very small print saying only up to the value of the software you purchased?
Damage studio's just said here is the line in the sand. If you are willing to stay with a company which has pushed the envelope this far, we don't want you. If you were unknowledgeable about what the company was doing and the potential impact it could have, we don't want you.
Basically they sent a message that we don't want employees, who would think this type of activity is okay.
Geez, could you imagine what would have happened if some people at Enron said "You know this doesn't add up", I'm getting the hell out of here before I get associated with it and can't find a job to feed my family. Yet they were hiring up to the day they closed.
I think it was the hippie's who said "Peace Love and anything goes man."
I would consider that information to be private. If I have an intruder that seems to know a lot about the network, possibly trying to access systems which I would normally consider hidden, I would first suspect someone on the inside. I wouldn't suspect that a list of our computers was available via another party.
Something like this could be used as a shopping list for hackers.
I think that at the very least a company should tell users what the software is doing in this case.
I have to agree with others who posted here, inability to work within a MS network is the largest stumbling block. Telling everyone to just get rid of Windows isn't going to work. I have users who want to go to Linux or are willing to try, but once I show them the issues with working with files on the network their jets cool. I have been waiting 3 years for the network sharing issues to be resolved. But I am no longer holding my breath, because MS seems to be making it a moving target. If only the linux solution could catch smb versioning long enough to make a stable version, then managers could see how MS is forcing them to keep paying for the licenses instead of allowing a choice. I keep wondering why Mac OS X was able to create a system which worked with the MS infrastructure and Linux hasn't been able to.
Is there a listing of companies that have actually been affected be BSA. Except for some city in North Dakota I have never actually heard of anyone being audited by BSA . Or any company actually being prosecuted/fined. After 3 years of hearing this I'm beginning to think that BSA is 3 guys at Kinko's copying and stuffing envelopes.
Check out MS spin on this http://msnbc.com/news/880094.asp. I just had a user come into my office proclaiming the downfall of Linux and Unix. I guess if you buy the news department you can make the news be whatever you want.
Slashdot Mirror
You or anyone else can form an opinion of me on each of those points and you might decide I'm not the sort of person you would want to hire. That's a valid judgment for you to make. You might consider me morally lax or unrealistically idealistic or just annoying :) any of those is valid reason for you to choose against me.
Exactly, I can refuse to hire people simply because of there association with another company. Such as ex-Exxon, Enron, Target, but I think I would be a better person/Company if I posted it, so they would know up front (possibly argue with me about it), instead of throwing them in the circular round file. It also sends a message to employees about expectations within the company.
So exactly when do you walk out? When they find out the company is using pirated software? How much? When they poison neighbors with chemicals? How many should die or become ill first? When they steal money from people through acts of fraud? What is fraudulent behavior? Is it legally manipulating the books to appear profitable? Is it advertising that the product you sell will protect you from monetary damages and then in very small print saying only up to the value of the software you purchased?
Damage studio's just said here is the line in the sand. If you are willing to stay with a company which has pushed the envelope this far, we don't want you. If you were unknowledgeable about what the company was doing and the potential impact it could have, we don't want you.
Basically they sent a message that we don't want employees, who would think this type of activity is okay. Geez, could you imagine what would have happened if some people at Enron said "You know this doesn't add up", I'm getting the hell out of here before I get associated with it and can't find a job to feed my family. Yet they were hiring up to the day they closed. I think it was the hippie's who said "Peace Love and anything goes man."
I would consider that information to be private. If I have an intruder that seems to know a lot about the network, possibly trying to access systems which I would normally consider hidden, I would first suspect someone on the inside. I wouldn't suspect that a list of our computers was available via another party. Something like this could be used as a shopping list for hackers. I think that at the very least a company should tell users what the software is doing in this case.
The best thing about it is that you can delete it so much quicker than the other versions of Windows.
I have to agree with others who posted here, inability to work within a MS network is the largest stumbling block. Telling everyone to just get rid of Windows isn't going to work. I have users who want to go to Linux or are willing to try, but once I show them the issues with working with files on the network their jets cool. I have been waiting 3 years for the network sharing issues to be resolved. But I am no longer holding my breath, because MS seems to be making it a moving target. If only the linux solution could catch smb versioning long enough to make a stable version, then managers could see how MS is forcing them to keep paying for the licenses instead of allowing a choice. I keep wondering why Mac OS X was able to create a system which worked with the MS infrastructure and Linux hasn't been able to.
Yes, but its for your computer. Keeps it from catching those W32* viruses
Is there a listing of companies that have actually been affected be BSA. Except for some city in North Dakota I have never actually heard of anyone being audited by BSA . Or any company actually being prosecuted/fined. After 3 years of hearing this I'm beginning to think that BSA is 3 guys at Kinko's copying and stuffing envelopes.
Check out MS spin on this
http://msnbc.com/news/880094.asp. I just had a user come into my office proclaiming the downfall of Linux and Unix. I guess if you buy the news department you can make the news be whatever you want.