Because "going with the flow" is the worst possible response. Sure, it'll get you past the screener and onto the plane, which satisfies your short-term goal. But more importantly, it makes the practice of searching your laptop electronically acceptable. This is how your rights get eroded a little at a time, the famed "slippery slope". When someone in a position of authority attempts to violate your constitutional rights, stand up and protect those rights.
If you don't like the distribution, don't use it. Simple as that. Keeping the OS simple and maintainable as a laudable goal, and I would find it difficult to argue with them just because my personal choice GUI wasn't included (though neither Gnome or KDE are *my* personal choice:-)).
The beauty of open source is that anyone can do this -- if you really disagree with their choice on which GUI to include, make your own distribution and include just KDE with it.
I'm curious where that information came from. For a typical 5ESS installation, in my experience the Solaris box connected to it is 1) behind the same locked door as the switch itself, and 2) not connected to the 'net.
Maybe the CLEC that I work for is just more secure than other telecom companies.
"So, one more time, why would I need Solaris/x86?"
Depends on your goals. Linux is actively under development, by a lot of different people, and it changes regularly. It's a little frustrating to get used to how it works, get scripts for automation setup and everything, and then when you upgrade to the next release everything changes. Nothing is where it used to be, or works quite the same, etc.
Solaris is not the fastest OS by any means, but when I need to manage a whole farm of servers I want simplicity and easy of management, not just speed. Linux is great for my home computer, but at work I will stick with Solaris.
The implication of the article is that OS X would definitely have as many security holes as Windows, if it were the most popular OS. Where is the logic behind that conclusion? It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that OS X really is a better operating system and would have a fraction of the security problems that Windows does. Popularity is not a valid measurement of security.
Slashdot Mirror
Because "going with the flow" is the worst possible response. Sure, it'll get you past the screener and onto the plane, which satisfies your short-term goal. But more importantly, it makes the practice of searching your laptop electronically acceptable. This is how your rights get eroded a little at a time, the famed "slippery slope". When someone in a position of authority attempts to violate your constitutional rights, stand up and protect those rights.
If you don't like the distribution, don't use it. Simple as that. Keeping the OS simple and maintainable as a laudable goal, and I would find it difficult to argue with them just because my personal choice GUI wasn't included (though neither Gnome or KDE are *my* personal choice :-)).
The beauty of open source is that anyone can do this -- if you really disagree with their choice on which GUI to include, make your own distribution and include just KDE with it.
I'm curious where that information came from. For a typical 5ESS installation, in my experience the Solaris box connected to it is 1) behind the same locked door as the switch itself, and 2) not connected to the 'net. Maybe the CLEC that I work for is just more secure than other telecom companies.
"So, one more time, why would I need Solaris/x86?"
Depends on your goals. Linux is actively under development, by a lot of different people, and it changes regularly. It's a little frustrating to get used to how it works, get scripts for automation setup and everything, and then when you upgrade to the next release everything changes. Nothing is where it used to be, or works quite the same, etc.
Solaris is not the fastest OS by any means, but when I need to manage a whole farm of servers I want simplicity and easy of management, not just speed. Linux is great for my home computer, but at work I will stick with Solaris.
Dave
The implication of the article is that OS X would definitely have as many security holes as Windows, if it were the most popular OS. Where is the logic behind that conclusion? It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that OS X really is a better operating system and would have a fraction of the security problems that Windows does. Popularity is not a valid measurement of security.