Because congress is made of lawyers, and no lawyer wants less lawsuits because that means less money. Loser pays is bad for the people who decide the laws so they certainly aren't going to make it a law now are they?
Simple solution to that is that all fees are based on the cost of a single lawyer and one paralegal regardless of other factors. Never allow larger fees to be collected.
Lawyers set their own rates and then sue for that amount. Much like congress, when you set your own fees and people don't have an actual choice in the matter, you tend to set your fees ridiculously high, well beyond your worth.
Time to cap lawyers fees as well.
Of course, there is absolutely 0% chance of that happening because... congress is full of... you guessed it, lawyers.
If you think ActiveX is bad, you don't know what you're talking about.
ActiveX is almost entirely the same as the framework Mozilla uses for Firefox plugins.
ActiveX is nothing more than a system for arbitrary plugins in apps. Its just a way that neither the app nor the plugin have to know anything about each other in advance, yet can still be used together.
ActiveX was not a 'knew jerk' reaction to Java, it couldn't be, it was around years before java, it was known as OLE previous to ActiveX, and something else I can't remember off the top of my head before that.
For security purposes, IE checks the ActiveX for a specific flag that specifics that the ActiveX has been written to be secure when dealing with arbitrary input from the Internet. Don't set that bit, and the ActiveX isn't a threat.
The problem is that IE would automatically install ActiveX objects from anywhere on the Internet by default. If you configure Firefox or Chrome to do the same, neither of them will be any different than the original IE implementation of ActiveX support.
That was eventually changed, because it was clearly a stupid idea. Then the next obviously stupid thing most developers did came next. All developers who figured out how to make ActiveX controls ALSO tagged almost every damn one of them as being safe for use in IE with scripting even though there was no consideration of security. This is neither the fault of ActiveX or IE directly, and is no different than any other plugin exploit in any other browser.
In short, again, if you think ActiveX is bad, you don't understand what you're talking about for multiple reasons.
The whole activex/IE exploit episode was a horrible experience for all, but the problem was never ActiveX.
I run OpenBSD on my firewalls. I have no qualms with the OS. Its good stuff. I in no way deny that.
On the other hand, if you're talking me I'm a jerk, you've never in your life read any communication from de Raadt. He's a undeniable douche. I'm fairly certain even his mother hates him. I'd be cash that you can't find one person on the planet that can honestly say something nice about him that doesnt' involve his programming skills. That should tell you something.
He has skills, no doubt. So does every athelete in major sporting events. Both of those people with skills are extremely trivial to replace.
I used to be impressed by de Raadts work. Then I started actually listening to what he said. He's a douche, and I'm being nice when I say that. His work doesn't make up for everything else about him.
Hell, he's not even really trustworthy. They have this 'Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!' on the obsd.org page now, do you know how many variations on that I've seen over the years? Every time it gets exploited, he just changes what it says to be true. Now its to the point that he still tries to bullshit about it but won't even put up specifics anymore. First it was just 'no exploits', then no remote, then it got changed to 'in the default install' of course, that was a few days after they removed an exploited package from the default install.
There are plenty of people who don't think I'm a jerk. EVERYONE who knows anything about him knows he's a fucking asshole.
It probably has less to do with you being right and more to do with him not feeling the need to convince you that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Which one of you was right? I don't know, but I do know you can't recognize being obviously blown off so I'm gonna have to lay my money on him.
OR more like when people are too retarded to realize this has nothing to do with Microsoft having control. This is a way to easily get some of that control back, you're just too stupid to realize that by not doing it you actually are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are in fact doing to yourself exactly what you accuse Microsoft of MAYBE doing in the future.
Secure boot is going to be the way of the future with or without Linux. Linux is a statistical error on the machines we're talking about. Nothing Linus says is going to have any effect what so ever on secure boot, so in the end, no matter what code you have in the kernel, its still not going to boot without following Microsoft's blessing.
Of course, if you knew anything about the issue, you'd know that MS already made it A FUCKING REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW SECURE BOOT TO BE DISABLED OR YOUR OWN KEYS ADDED to the EFI NVRAM so your OS can boot.
The only one preventing Linux from booting on Secure Boot machines are Linux bigots and zealots. How do I know this? CAUSE I'VE FUCKING BOOTED LINUX ON SECURE BOOT WITHOUT ANY FUCKING HACKS LIKE THIS.
God you guys would be dangerous if you had any idea what the fuck you were talking about.
The PC has a digital signature saying its licensed to run Win8 (pro or whatever) in its EFI implementation. Windows OEM copies checks this to avoid asking for a key if you clearly are authorized.
Likewise... stop using an OEM copy of Server 2012 and you'll get a prompt rather than a denial. You purchased an OEM copy of 2012 and you're bitching because you can't do something with it that was expressly forbidden from the start.
The only thing that happened here is that your easy method of stealing doesn't work anymore.
That has nothing to do with secure boot and has been in there since at least Vista, I think Windows XP SP3 OEM did it as well. Its not new.
A CA can be disconnected. Your web browser isn't talking to the CA for every cert it sees anyway. If windows can check the CA, why can't the EFI? (BIOS is gone, remember?) Every EFI board I have has been able to BOOTP boot, so I'm going to guess dhcp only isn't that much of a stretch. BIOS doesn't do Secure Boot at all, we have something new to do that, so why would we make it with the same shortcomings as the last one?
On the other hand, do servers need secure boot? NO, do tablets need secure boot? NO.
I'm fairly certain you could not understand secure boot less, or be more wrong in a single statement.
Secure boot is good EVERYWHERE. It is in no way 'A Bad Thing'. You can argue 'MS control' all you want, but excluding the MS part and secure boot is useful in all computing devices, it protects against a known attack vector that gets exploited time and time again and in days where all CPUs are capable of running in a nearly undetectable hypervisor OR undetectable (mostly) System Management Mode doing things the OS has no clear idea about its environment being secure.
If anything, servers are the first place it should be implemented. Linux isn't 'totally secure'. Even if the kernel isn't rooted, theres PLENTY of software packages that can be. Secure boot CAN stop one of the vectors those software packages use to embed themselves without detection. But you know what, you don't need any protection, you go ahead and keep running your shitty PHP apps until libphp.so gets exploited, working its way back up your webserver process until it fan find a leak big enough to make a mark on you.
Secure boot is the first step into providing a virus free environment. It is actually required if you want to actually TRUST what you are running.
If by alone you mean with his wife, kids and friends at his bedside in his last moments of life, then sure, he died alone. We all do by that measure. And for the record, he too thinks the homeopathic thing was dumb as shit and was clear that no one should do that, he regretted it.
Linux doesn't run at all in my business, my home or my datacenter with one exception, my ASUS N66 runs linux. Other than that, every router I own has some sort of BSD base to it (Thanks Juniper!), my phone, tablets and desktops do as well.
In short, if you live in a fanboy world where you want to see Linux all over the place, you will. Just like a Windows fanboy or an Apple fanboy.
Symbian was more popular than Linux for years by massive amounts, yet no one thinks of it as anything else.
When you give your shit away for free, its not impressive that a bunch of people use it or bits of it. Its only impressive if no one bothers to pay for an alternative, which I hate to break it to you, even when you get linux on your phone, you're paying for an alternative version of a free product.
Unlike Linux fanboys who are too stupid to realize it... BSD people just go into the EFI setup and turn off secure boot or add their own keys and move on because this isn't anything more than a theoretical problem.
Linux fanboys just rant and rave about freedom and oppression. BSD fanboys just keep getting shit done.
If you read the UEFI spec, specifically the Microsoft requirements for certification for Windows8 and how that relates to secure boot, you'd know the answer to the problem is... ADD YOUR OWN KEYS INSTEAD OF MICROSOFTS OR TURN OFF SECURE BOOT. Both of these things are requirements of Windows 8 certification on x86/x64 at this time.
So basically, Linux fanboys are just too stupid to go turn off feature they are so afraid of.
Next year, MS may change the requirements and that might be a problem. BSD people will worry about it then. Linux fanboys will speculate about it and spread FUD until people realize its FUD and get tired of hearing about it and then once again, things will go back to normal.
Microsoft's amount of control will not change based on if he does or doesn't accept the patch. Its mind numbing that you think they need his approval.
Microsoft is going to do what they want with or without this patch. With this patch, Linux may work. Without it, it won't. Game over, period, end of story.
Now you tell me exactly which party here is the one preventing Linux from running under secure boot cause from where I'm standing its the doofy looking arrogant and angry finnish dood that looks like the problem here.
He is doing EXACTLY what he's bitching about Microsoft doing... and he's worshipped for it? You guys are fucking ignorant sheeple.
Perhaps Linux should support fat binaries like... say... EVERY OTHER OS THAT MATTERS then, and then support for that could be added to UEFI easy enough by manufactures.
What you want is to add ANOTHER WAY to do what works. Every other OS realizes how good fat binaries are. Why is it Linux is the only OS I know of that claims to be a viable desktop OS yet its the only one that doesn't support a feature that I use literally every single day.
The desktop wasn't really 'growing' before the tablet. Every business can not grow forever. At some point, the market gets saturated, that happened before the tablet crazy. Unless there has been a proportionally large decrease in sales, but thats not what happened. Sales in fact only went down ever so slightly. Less than 5%, and thats hard to determine if its actual tablet use thats causing hte problem, or still just saturation effects. Its likely tablets of course, as saturation really started all the way back in 2003 or so.
So in 2012, more tablets were sold than PCs... about 5% more (roughly 95 million PCs versus 100 million tablets)... and PCs only saw a 5% drop.
That says people aren't replacing their PCs with tablets, they are complementing their PCs with tablets.
Wow, there isn't a single fact in your post anywhere.
So in a few months... Microsoft is going to change the requirements for the OS it just released, so all those people who got their hardware certified... which REQUIRED THEM TO ALLOW BOOT OF OTHER OSes OR DISABLE SECURE BOOT OR ENTER YOUR OWN KEYS... are not longer going to be certified?
Microsoft is going to openly say every machine sold with Windows 8 previous to now... even ones previously certified... are not certifed for Windows 8 any more?
By 99, Microsoft was well past obscure undocumented quirks to lockout apps (heh, if you use undocumented quirks of linux, you'll get flamed to all hell and back when it breaks and told its your fault. Ironic) and on to figuring out how to beat down Netscape.
FYI: The raspberry pi will not boot Linux without a special boot loader created under an NDA by Broadcom. Guess what, its in almost THE EXACT SAME SITUATION.
Congratulations, you've demonstrated you know none of the facts related to anything you spoke of.
There isn't anything technically in the Linux kernel that makes ti superior in some major compelling way that I'm aware of, why do you want the Linux kernel so much?
I ask out of ignorance, It would seem to me that you would actually be downgrading a bit, all things considered.
To put it bluntly, its because you're an ass and no one wants to deal with you.
Doesn't matter how great of a coder you are, or how meticulous you are about security, if you want free shit, you can't piss in peoples faces on a daily basis.
OpenBSD isn't THAT special, and if it didn't create OpenSSH, someone else would have. You are not unique. You are easily replaceable with someone better, we just have them doing more important things right now.
Go crawl back into your hole and work on how you're going to change your 'No exploits since...' line the next time you get exploited so you can still pretend its been a long time.
Your work may be well known, but it isn't why people know you, and THAT is why you are in the situation you are in. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd realize what you've done to yourself.
Both companies have contributed major amounts of code to the FreeBSD project and other open source projects.
Juniper has actually given away a bit of its special sauce in the process. They tend to like to keep their TCP/IP stacks fast, so when you're building on the worlds fastest in the first place (FreeBSD) its just good form to share code so the code bases don't diverge too far.
Are you really such an asshole that the only reason you give back to someone is because you are required by contract/license?
Darwin is entirely irrelevant. Its not even OSS anymore, Apple determined lossing a few OSS fanboys was worth it compared to the pirating of OSX it facilitated. On the other hand, Apple bought CUPS, which is far more useful to far more people than the shitty crap known as NDS (and I'm qualified to say its shitty crap, I have code in it).
Not like WebKit mattered until... Apple gave it meaning, then Google jumped in after the fact.
Apple is not your friend, but they are not a 'bad' OSS citizen by any means. They certainly are not rabid zealot nutjobs like people such as yourself that cant' see anything else in the world other than if software uses GPL or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Because congress is made of lawyers, and no lawyer wants less lawsuits because that means less money. Loser pays is bad for the people who decide the laws so they certainly aren't going to make it a law now are they?
Simple solution to that is that all fees are based on the cost of a single lawyer and one paralegal regardless of other factors. Never allow larger fees to be collected.
Lawyers set their own rates and then sue for that amount. Much like congress, when you set your own fees and people don't have an actual choice in the matter, you tend to set your fees ridiculously high, well beyond your worth.
Time to cap lawyers fees as well.
Of course, there is absolutely 0% chance of that happening because ... congress is full of ... you guessed it, lawyers.
Double standards are despicable.
Only if you're stupid enough to think everything fits into your extremely simplistic moral view.
Heres' a hint. It doesn't.
If you think ActiveX is bad, you don't know what you're talking about.
ActiveX is almost entirely the same as the framework Mozilla uses for Firefox plugins.
ActiveX is nothing more than a system for arbitrary plugins in apps. Its just a way that neither the app nor the plugin have to know anything about each other in advance, yet can still be used together.
ActiveX was not a 'knew jerk' reaction to Java, it couldn't be, it was around years before java, it was known as OLE previous to ActiveX, and something else I can't remember off the top of my head before that.
For security purposes, IE checks the ActiveX for a specific flag that specifics that the ActiveX has been written to be secure when dealing with arbitrary input from the Internet. Don't set that bit, and the ActiveX isn't a threat.
The problem is that IE would automatically install ActiveX objects from anywhere on the Internet by default. If you configure Firefox or Chrome to do the same, neither of them will be any different than the original IE implementation of ActiveX support.
That was eventually changed, because it was clearly a stupid idea. Then the next obviously stupid thing most developers did came next. All developers who figured out how to make ActiveX controls ALSO tagged almost every damn one of them as being safe for use in IE with scripting even though there was no consideration of security. This is neither the fault of ActiveX or IE directly, and is no different than any other plugin exploit in any other browser.
In short, again, if you think ActiveX is bad, you don't understand what you're talking about for multiple reasons.
The whole activex/IE exploit episode was a horrible experience for all, but the problem was never ActiveX.
I run OpenBSD on my firewalls. I have no qualms with the OS. Its good stuff. I in no way deny that.
On the other hand, if you're talking me I'm a jerk, you've never in your life read any communication from de Raadt. He's a undeniable douche. I'm fairly certain even his mother hates him. I'd be cash that you can't find one person on the planet that can honestly say something nice about him that doesnt' involve his programming skills. That should tell you something.
He has skills, no doubt. So does every athelete in major sporting events. Both of those people with skills are extremely trivial to replace.
I used to be impressed by de Raadts work. Then I started actually listening to what he said. He's a douche, and I'm being nice when I say that. His work doesn't make up for everything else about him.
Hell, he's not even really trustworthy. They have this 'Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!' on the obsd.org page now, do you know how many variations on that I've seen over the years? Every time it gets exploited, he just changes what it says to be true. Now its to the point that he still tries to bullshit about it but won't even put up specifics anymore. First it was just 'no exploits', then no remote, then it got changed to 'in the default install' of course, that was a few days after they removed an exploited package from the default install.
There are plenty of people who don't think I'm a jerk. EVERYONE who knows anything about him knows he's a fucking asshole.
It probably has less to do with you being right and more to do with him not feeling the need to convince you that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Which one of you was right? I don't know, but I do know you can't recognize being obviously blown off so I'm gonna have to lay my money on him.
OR more like when people are too retarded to realize this has nothing to do with Microsoft having control. This is a way to easily get some of that control back, you're just too stupid to realize that by not doing it you actually are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are in fact doing to yourself exactly what you accuse Microsoft of MAYBE doing in the future.
Secure boot is going to be the way of the future with or without Linux. Linux is a statistical error on the machines we're talking about. Nothing Linus says is going to have any effect what so ever on secure boot, so in the end, no matter what code you have in the kernel, its still not going to boot without following Microsoft's blessing.
Of course, if you knew anything about the issue, you'd know that MS already made it A FUCKING REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW SECURE BOOT TO BE DISABLED OR YOUR OWN KEYS ADDED to the EFI NVRAM so your OS can boot.
The only one preventing Linux from booting on Secure Boot machines are Linux bigots and zealots. How do I know this? CAUSE I'VE FUCKING BOOTED LINUX ON SECURE BOOT WITHOUT ANY FUCKING HACKS LIKE THIS.
God you guys would be dangerous if you had any idea what the fuck you were talking about.
The PC has a digital signature saying its licensed to run Win8 (pro or whatever) in its EFI implementation. Windows OEM copies checks this to avoid asking for a key if you clearly are authorized.
Likewise ... stop using an OEM copy of Server 2012 and you'll get a prompt rather than a denial. You purchased an OEM copy of 2012 and you're bitching because you can't do something with it that was expressly forbidden from the start.
The only thing that happened here is that your easy method of stealing doesn't work anymore.
That has nothing to do with secure boot and has been in there since at least Vista, I think Windows XP SP3 OEM did it as well. Its not new.
No, not always.
A CA can be disconnected. Your web browser isn't talking to the CA for every cert it sees anyway. If windows can check the CA, why can't the EFI? (BIOS is gone, remember?) Every EFI board I have has been able to BOOTP boot, so I'm going to guess dhcp only isn't that much of a stretch. BIOS doesn't do Secure Boot at all, we have something new to do that, so why would we make it with the same shortcomings as the last one?
On the other hand, do servers need secure boot? NO, do tablets need secure boot? NO.
I'm fairly certain you could not understand secure boot less, or be more wrong in a single statement.
Secure boot is good EVERYWHERE. It is in no way 'A Bad Thing'. You can argue 'MS control' all you want, but excluding the MS part and secure boot is useful in all computing devices, it protects against a known attack vector that gets exploited time and time again and in days where all CPUs are capable of running in a nearly undetectable hypervisor OR undetectable (mostly) System Management Mode doing things the OS has no clear idea about its environment being secure.
If anything, servers are the first place it should be implemented. Linux isn't 'totally secure'. Even if the kernel isn't rooted, theres PLENTY of software packages that can be. Secure boot CAN stop one of the vectors those software packages use to embed themselves without detection. But you know what, you don't need any protection, you go ahead and keep running your shitty PHP apps until libphp.so gets exploited, working its way back up your webserver process until it fan find a leak big enough to make a mark on you.
Secure boot is the first step into providing a virus free environment. It is actually required if you want to actually TRUST what you are running.
If by alone you mean with his wife, kids and friends at his bedside in his last moments of life, then sure, he died alone. We all do by that measure. And for the record, he too thinks the homeopathic thing was dumb as shit and was clear that no one should do that, he regretted it.
Linux doesn't run at all in my business, my home or my datacenter with one exception, my ASUS N66 runs linux. Other than that, every router I own has some sort of BSD base to it (Thanks Juniper!), my phone, tablets and desktops do as well.
In short, if you live in a fanboy world where you want to see Linux all over the place, you will. Just like a Windows fanboy or an Apple fanboy.
Symbian was more popular than Linux for years by massive amounts, yet no one thinks of it as anything else.
When you give your shit away for free, its not impressive that a bunch of people use it or bits of it. Its only impressive if no one bothers to pay for an alternative, which I hate to break it to you, even when you get linux on your phone, you're paying for an alternative version of a free product.
Unlike Linux fanboys who are too stupid to realize it ... BSD people just go into the EFI setup and turn off secure boot or add their own keys and move on because this isn't anything more than a theoretical problem.
Linux fanboys just rant and rave about freedom and oppression. BSD fanboys just keep getting shit done.
If you read the UEFI spec, specifically the Microsoft requirements for certification for Windows8 and how that relates to secure boot, you'd know the answer to the problem is ... ADD YOUR OWN KEYS INSTEAD OF MICROSOFTS OR TURN OFF SECURE BOOT. Both of these things are requirements of Windows 8 certification on x86/x64 at this time.
So basically, Linux fanboys are just too stupid to go turn off feature they are so afraid of.
Next year, MS may change the requirements and that might be a problem. BSD people will worry about it then. Linux fanboys will speculate about it and spread FUD until people realize its FUD and get tired of hearing about it and then once again, things will go back to normal.
How is the kernel dependent on Microsoft because of this change?
Thats a fucking stupid statement to make and its just a flat out lie.
Microsoft's amount of control will not change based on if he does or doesn't accept the patch. Its mind numbing that you think they need his approval.
Microsoft is going to do what they want with or without this patch. With this patch, Linux may work. Without it, it won't. Game over, period, end of story.
Now you tell me exactly which party here is the one preventing Linux from running under secure boot cause from where I'm standing its the doofy looking arrogant and angry finnish dood that looks like the problem here.
He is doing EXACTLY what he's bitching about Microsoft doing ... and he's worshipped for it? You guys are fucking ignorant sheeple.
Perhaps Linux should support fat binaries like ... say ... EVERY OTHER OS THAT MATTERS then, and then support for that could be added to UEFI easy enough by manufactures.
What you want is to add ANOTHER WAY to do what works. Every other OS realizes how good fat binaries are. Why is it Linux is the only OS I know of that claims to be a viable desktop OS yet its the only one that doesn't support a feature that I use literally every single day.
The desktop wasn't really 'growing' before the tablet. Every business can not grow forever. At some point, the market gets saturated, that happened before the tablet crazy. Unless there has been a proportionally large decrease in sales, but thats not what happened. Sales in fact only went down ever so slightly. Less than 5%, and thats hard to determine if its actual tablet use thats causing hte problem, or still just saturation effects. Its likely tablets of course, as saturation really started all the way back in 2003 or so.
So in 2012, more tablets were sold than PCs ... about 5% more (roughly 95 million PCs versus 100 million tablets) ... and PCs only saw a 5% drop.
That says people aren't replacing their PCs with tablets, they are complementing their PCs with tablets.
Wow, there isn't a single fact in your post anywhere.
So in a few months ... Microsoft is going to change the requirements for the OS it just released, so all those people who got their hardware certified ... which REQUIRED THEM TO ALLOW BOOT OF OTHER OSes OR DISABLE SECURE BOOT OR ENTER YOUR OWN KEYS ... are not longer going to be certified?
Microsoft is going to openly say every machine sold with Windows 8 previous to now ... even ones previously certified ... are not certifed for Windows 8 any more?
By 99, Microsoft was well past obscure undocumented quirks to lockout apps (heh, if you use undocumented quirks of linux, you'll get flamed to all hell and back when it breaks and told its your fault. Ironic) and on to figuring out how to beat down Netscape.
FYI: The raspberry pi will not boot Linux without a special boot loader created under an NDA by Broadcom. Guess what, its in almost THE EXACT SAME SITUATION.
Congratulations, you've demonstrated you know none of the facts related to anything you spoke of.
Why would you want OSX's UI over a Linux kernel?
There isn't anything technically in the Linux kernel that makes ti superior in some major compelling way that I'm aware of, why do you want the Linux kernel so much?
I ask out of ignorance, It would seem to me that you would actually be downgrading a bit, all things considered.
but it appears GPL is more focused on the long-term and BSD is focused on the short-term.
Really? Which one has been around longer?
To put it bluntly, its because you're an ass and no one wants to deal with you.
Doesn't matter how great of a coder you are, or how meticulous you are about security, if you want free shit, you can't piss in peoples faces on a daily basis.
OpenBSD isn't THAT special, and if it didn't create OpenSSH, someone else would have. You are not unique. You are easily replaceable with someone better, we just have them doing more important things right now.
Go crawl back into your hole and work on how you're going to change your 'No exploits since ...' line the next time you get exploited so you can still pretend its been a long time.
Your work may be well known, but it isn't why people know you, and THAT is why you are in the situation you are in. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd realize what you've done to yourself.
When it suits them.
If I was less lazy and didn't mind ratting out a few Google engineers and getting them in trouble, I could easily list things they keep to themselves.
Get over it. Its not your code, its theirs. You aren't losing anything by them not giving it to you either.
Both companies have contributed major amounts of code to the FreeBSD project and other open source projects.
Juniper has actually given away a bit of its special sauce in the process. They tend to like to keep their TCP/IP stacks fast, so when you're building on the worlds fastest in the first place (FreeBSD) its just good form to share code so the code bases don't diverge too far.
Are you really such an asshole that the only reason you give back to someone is because you are required by contract/license?
He said 'MOST' Linux vendors, not all.
Darwin is entirely irrelevant. Its not even OSS anymore, Apple determined lossing a few OSS fanboys was worth it compared to the pirating of OSX it facilitated. On the other hand, Apple bought CUPS, which is far more useful to far more people than the shitty crap known as NDS (and I'm qualified to say its shitty crap, I have code in it).
Not like WebKit mattered until ... Apple gave it meaning, then Google jumped in after the fact.
Apple is not your friend, but they are not a 'bad' OSS citizen by any means. They certainly are not rabid zealot nutjobs like people such as yourself that cant' see anything else in the world other than if software uses GPL or not.
There is more to the world than the GPL.
Ahh, spoken by someone who has clearly never actually worked in a data center.
Good job, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Your $100 doesn't perform like my more expensive (Not $800, wtf are you buying, SSDs?) in any way.