So in order for your statement to be true, Mint must be using some completely different kernel than all the rest that is mysteriously better.
I some how find that hard to believe, which makes you either completely ignorant of the OS your fanboying about, or a really retarded/bad troll.
Second, some douche in his moms basement who already has four or five machines in his house isn't the target of the ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD project now is it?
OLPC isn't a design contest so you can have something to jerk off with, you are not the target. They don't have the wrong target, your just too self centered and ignorant to realize the world doesn't revolve around you and what you want, which is pretty typical on slashdot so don't take it personally.
if we're gonna start kids off with computers in the Third World, Linux makes WAY more sense than Windows
Not really. It only make sense from the incredibly short sighted financial aspect only.
From a 'which is more likely to get someone a job', Windows is far more useful in most places. And lets face it, it may be 'one laptop per CHILD'... but mommy and daddy are going to take advantage of it too if thats the only computer in the house.
Freedom is great, right up until you starve. Please stop trying to use to throw 'free'dom into it, its as retarded as those 'freecreditreport.com' commercials... with enrollment in triple advantage for 12 months.
Its far harder to find iOS bugs than it is to find Android bugs.
Of course, theoretically, its FAR easier to patch Android bugs and fix the problems upstream so everyone is safer. I say theoretically because lets face it, I patch a bug today, its unlikely that anyone is going to get an update on their phone that will give them my bug fix, but thats the carriers fault.
The statement that closed source is more secure is true however much you dislike it.
The reality is that for large enough projects which are viewed and maintained by enough people that open source would be more secure, Android for instance, then the statement while true, doesn't matter because its outweighed by the benefits of being open source.
If you take his statement on its own, it is true, but when put in the context of something like android, it is outweighed by other benefits that allow for better overall security and a better overall product, but only if everyone in the user chain keeps up, including the carriers.
I'd put more faith in iOS than most android (not all) because the iOS devices are going to be updated to patch the security flaws as to limit jailbreaking and Apple controls the update stream. Android on the other hand is entirely in the hands of the carriers, which means it pretty much stays the way it was when it was purchased for almost all android phones.
Theres more to 'security' than any one single point, too bad neither Mr Chang or Slashdot think about that.
Repeat after me.. security through secrecy only works while your secret is, err, secret..
Yep, and so does encryption, whats your point? Don't make statements you don't understand just because you read it somewhere.
Every encryption and authentication system known to man depends on security through obscurity/secrecy. If you actually knew anything about either of the two, you'd know not to make silly statements like the one you just made.
I won't argue that Mr Chang's statements weren't retarded, but yours are equally as ignorant and incorrect.
You do realize you can be infected with a virus without any fault of your operating system... right?
It is entirely possibly, just like people viruses, for computers to get viruses because the person in control was a fucking idiot and did it to themselves.
I'll bet you a months pay that I can give you a file that will infect your OS, whatever OS it is. Hell, you pick the value of the bet, I don't care what it is.
I'll infect you via social engineering, yes, after I've told you I'm going to do it. You'll infect yourself on your own, due to your own arrogance and ignorance.
The Chinese intel services have the source for it. Russia does too.
Yea? So do I. You can buy it from MS if you a willing to pay the price and sign the right paperwork. I just happen to work for a company who does.
Contrary to popular ignorance, seeing the Windows source is pretty trivial and a massive amount of people outside of Microsoft have seen it, including any 'white hat' worth his salt.
I'm sorry that every 'joe random teenage hax0r' doesn't have the source but the reality of it is there are far more people putting effort into doing bad things with exploits they find than there is doing good things.
You're trying to use a battle cry that no one with common sense and experience in the industry uses.
I'd be willing to bet more people have seen the Windows source in depth than the Linux code base in depth. Sure, plenty of people have looked at the kernel source, but 99.9% of those people opened a c file, looked around, realized they had no freaking clue what they were looking at and never looked at it again... I don't count them as they are useless. Windows has been around longer and has far more resources behind it due to its market domination.
Also, contrary to popular belief just because crowd sourcing CAN be beneficial doesn't mean that randomly throwing things at the crowd will result in anything beneficial.
No, you aren't. You can not possibly find and store useful information with 100 tabs open at once, the human mind simply doesn't work that way and no matter how many times your mommy told you were special it won't change that fact.
If you have more than a handful of tabs, you're doing it wrong for MANY reasons.
Feel free to ignore me and tell me how I'm wrong but real science and research has shown you simply aren't capable of processing that much information in a useful manner.
Also, again, 'bouncing all over' is not product, as has been shown many times by many studies around the world. Your lack of focus is not a benefit, no matter how many times or ways you try to tell people it is.
Anyone with 30 tabs open is an idiot, mark me as a troll if you want, you're probably right but there is no way you can possible analyze and utilize what results from having 30 tabs open so I stand by my statement, you don't need 30 tabs, your an idiot who proposed a completely ludacris sitatuation as a reason why it doesn't suck.
Lets also note: 30 tabs in 1.5 will not be anything like 30 tabs in 3.0, regardless of hardware involved. I'm afraid that you'll find that viewing HTML is not noticably different and that for all the buggy memory leaking that 1.5 did, it was still better than 3 or 4 and seems to be able to render THE EXACT SAME PAGES.
It hasn't been just a browser for years, its an application platform that supports browsing by default, pretending that its a web browser with advanced features is retarded. Firefox is an application platform that happens to support the web well. 1.5 and 2 were nothing like 3.x, you don't need to comment on how well they perform if you can't tell the difference. Again, mark me as a troll if you want, but you're trying to pretend the current mess that is known as firefox is anything like 2 versions back.
Mozilla has 0 direction and it shows in what they produce. They stopped caring about what the set out to produce and now its turned into anarchy where every retarded feature makes it in.
You make a new version because you have something to offer, not because a new version will give you a marketing campaign. Firefox seems to have forgotten the point in writing software and are more or less pulling a Microsoft.
Time to revoke some of the ridiculous salaries of Mozilla's leadership since it seems to have turned them into morons.
I was heavily invested in Gecko, had it implemented as a core component of the next 5-6 years of our companies software development. Their direction and lack of ability to provide a stable platform resulted in my department completely ripping gecko out of our products and replacing it with alternatives. We found that it was easier to maintain native ports for GUI work than to track firefox. Now we just use native GUI code for the gui and webkit for the display of HTML.
Please explain to me the difference in BROWSING between 1.5 and 3.0. Don't tell me about all the crap thrown in that the browser does, tell me about what you REALLY CAN NOTICE is DIFFERENT in the rendering between 1.5 and 3.x or hell, 4.0.
To say that Google doesn't 'own' them is to not understand how these licenses work.
Google owns the copyright, the license does not change that. They may not be able to revoke the license on existing bits of code already out there, but that doesn't stop them from changing the rules tomorrow to suit their wants for all future modifications.
And of course, the exact same thing applies to x264.
I won't even start on the fact that regardless of what you think an OSS license has 0 affect on patents being used against you.
WebM is controlled entirely by Google, they can do anything they want with it, including telling you to go fuck yourself tomorrow because its established now and they want royalties... all because Eric's wife wants a new sail boat.
On the other hand.
In order for the x264 licensing agreement to change, the holders of all of the 1000 or so patents involved have to agree on a change. That means Microsoft, Apple, LG, France Telecom, DEAWOOD, Toshibia and many others all have to agree on new terms...
Which do you REALLY think is more likely to happen?
FOSS software forces me to do MANY thing the way the authors wanted it even though I have the skills to change it. I don't have the time to change it.
For the record, I also have the skills to pretty much mangle any commercial software package into doing what I want as well, without the source, binaries are just another form of code to be deciphered. But I don't... because I don't have the time.
As far as FOSS not having restrictions... ever FOSS license except public domain is a list of restrictions placed on what you can do with the software, its retarded to say it has no restrictions when the license itself is nothing more than a list of restrictions. You DO know FOSS software is still licensed right?
I'm sorry, WHY can't it be used as a plugin? All firefox has to do is support the codecs installed on my Windows machine and it'll have h264 support as I have it for other reasons, and every other app on my system doesn't seem to be unable to use those codecs...
The browser developer doesn't have to pay if they don't use it, they just have to make provisions so someone else can sell it or give it away if they want to pay the fees.
The license fees are so ridiculously cheap that you could write it off as a cost of doing business and it wouldn't even be worth mentioning on the balance sheets. Hell, saying you support h264 so the video will play on the iPhone/iPad in your advertisements would be worth the $10k cost per year (price for 1million units or more).
But back to my original point, please cite specifically where Firefox would be unable to use h264 for any reason other than their own artificial reasons.
I would gladly pay for many Linux packages at $0.10 a piece, hell much more than that.
I won't pay, however, for the thousands of shitty half completed Linux apps that are pawned off as 'alternatives to commercial software' when they are no where NEAR the same level of quality.
Of course, Linux distributions, just like Microsoft Windows distributions could bundle a bunch of shit together and charge one price for the package instead of 10 cents per package and sell it too me for $100. They'd have to raise the bar from a usability standpoint, but its not out of the question and it could actually be used to fund development.
f however, Google and Mozilla remove support for H.264 and only support open codecs, Microsoft will be forced to adopt open standards as well, rather than slamming Google for "imposing a language on the world," as they've tried to do many times in the past.
Really? Microsoft HAS to do what everyone else does?
What world have you be living in because I've been fighting Microsoft not following what everyone does for the last 15 years. I don't think I was ever around for the time when MS followed someone else standards (with the exception of IP and Kerberos that I can think of).
MS won't change because of this, and websites will still do what MS says if they want to stay relevant. Slashdot might not, but major websites will, including Google.
Pretty much every OSS license in existence fully accepts charging fees for the software distribution. You could not possibly be more wrong, nor could you possibly be any more obviously a freeloader.
What you mean is because it has a 'fee' it is not 'Free'. Open has nothing to do with your argument.
And what you mean by free is not free as in libre, its free as in no cost, again, absolutely no relation what so ever to open.
What you mean by 'OPEN' is 'FREE RIDE'. You need to learn engrish a little better me thinks.
Its completely normal to pay for standards, I'm guessing you've just never worked in the position to know that. People pay to license open standards all day long.
Richard Stallman doesn't define open, neither do you, and you both have the wrong definition.
And you don't have to pay that $100k until you get into the millions of units distributed.
For small independent developers the fee is $0. If you get popular, yes, you have to pay, but the tiers for payment are extremely cheap compared to the distribution size.
After 100k units (below that is no royalty charge) I believe it is, your price per unit is about $0.025 USD.... thats right... 3 cents per unit, and it does nothing but go down from there.
JAG officers are free to all service personal, regardless of their ability to pay for it.
This is a high profile cause and it will have the high end JAG lawyers involved on both sides.
He would be a complete idiot to get civilian counsel when the best he could get out of it is someone who USED to practice military law and is now out practicing on their own in civilian courts after being released from military service.
In short, if he 'pays' for lawyers with any money he'll be giving himself a less capable lawyer.
What money they 'donate' to his legal defense is silly and unneeded.
it is to the point where he has to be given antidepressants just to be kept alive
... doctors prescribe anti-depressants for EVERYTHING now days, its like saying they give him aspirin, it means nothing.
As for the way he's being treated, there really isn't any doubt in anyones mind that he did what he's accused of, with that in mind he should probably get used to the way he's being treated because he's going to continue being treated that way for a LONG time.
These are laws and rules that were put in place before Manning even joined the service. Its well known in pretty much any country that if you commit treason you're going to get fucked. He knew what was coming to him. I feel no sympathy. His behavior was unacceptable in every sense of the word, especially since there were other outlets to handle the situation that he never bothered to attempt to use. He could, of course, have brought his information to oh... say... an AMERICAN newspaper or news tv program? I'd feel completely different had he done so.
He literally gave away classified material to a foreign entity. He committed treason, clearly, wether it was right or wrong for him to do it, he still clearly committed premeditated treason. To expect him to be treated as anything other than a horrible criminal because he might have done something good would result in many idiots (just like him) who think they are doing 'the right thing' when they also commit treason because he didn't get off so bad. What you see now is one of the most effective deterrents available. Don't want to do the time, don't commit the fucking crime, and most certainly don't cry to me about it after you get caught.
As for his stent in Solitary, the alternative is that he could be put in with the general population. I suspect that he wouldn't survive more than a few days before someone killed him. Even criminals have standards, he's a rat, and rats live just slightly longer than child molesters in prison.
If you want him to live, you want him in solitary.
Slashdot Mirror
Which just goes to show how retarded the poll actually is.
So in order for your statement to be true, Mint must be using some completely different kernel than all the rest that is mysteriously better.
I some how find that hard to believe, which makes you either completely ignorant of the OS your fanboying about, or a really retarded/bad troll.
Second, some douche in his moms basement who already has four or five machines in his house isn't the target of the ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD project now is it?
OLPC isn't a design contest so you can have something to jerk off with, you are not the target. They don't have the wrong target, your just too self centered and ignorant to realize the world doesn't revolve around you and what you want, which is pretty typical on slashdot so don't take it personally.
Not really. It only make sense from the incredibly short sighted financial aspect only.
From a 'which is more likely to get someone a job', Windows is far more useful in most places. And lets face it, it may be 'one laptop per CHILD' ... but mommy and daddy are going to take advantage of it too if thats the only computer in the house.
Freedom is great, right up until you starve. Please stop trying to use to throw 'free'dom into it, its as retarded as those 'freecreditreport.com' commercials ... with enrollment in triple advantage for 12 months.
Thats exactly what I was thinking, heh, Sci-Fi comes up with the idea, engineers make it happen. I love that combination.
Its important to remember that the last time Steve left Apple, it did in fact fall flat on its face and nearly slit its own throat.
The statement is true, like it or not.
Its far harder to find iOS bugs than it is to find Android bugs.
Of course, theoretically, its FAR easier to patch Android bugs and fix the problems upstream so everyone is safer. I say theoretically because lets face it, I patch a bug today, its unlikely that anyone is going to get an update on their phone that will give them my bug fix, but thats the carriers fault.
The statement that closed source is more secure is true however much you dislike it.
The reality is that for large enough projects which are viewed and maintained by enough people that open source would be more secure, Android for instance, then the statement while true, doesn't matter because its outweighed by the benefits of being open source.
If you take his statement on its own, it is true, but when put in the context of something like android, it is outweighed by other benefits that allow for better overall security and a better overall product, but only if everyone in the user chain keeps up, including the carriers.
I'd put more faith in iOS than most android (not all) because the iOS devices are going to be updated to patch the security flaws as to limit jailbreaking and Apple controls the update stream. Android on the other hand is entirely in the hands of the carriers, which means it pretty much stays the way it was when it was purchased for almost all android phones.
Theres more to 'security' than any one single point, too bad neither Mr Chang or Slashdot think about that.
Yep, and so does encryption, whats your point? Don't make statements you don't understand just because you read it somewhere.
Every encryption and authentication system known to man depends on security through obscurity/secrecy. If you actually knew anything about either of the two, you'd know not to make silly statements like the one you just made.
I won't argue that Mr Chang's statements weren't retarded, but yours are equally as ignorant and incorrect.
So, you clearly don't understand viruses.
You do realize you can be infected with a virus without any fault of your operating system ... right?
It is entirely possibly, just like people viruses, for computers to get viruses because the person in control was a fucking idiot and did it to themselves.
I'll bet you a months pay that I can give you a file that will infect your OS, whatever OS it is. Hell, you pick the value of the bet, I don't care what it is.
I'll infect you via social engineering, yes, after I've told you I'm going to do it. You'll infect yourself on your own, due to your own arrogance and ignorance.
Yea? So do I. You can buy it from MS if you a willing to pay the price and sign the right paperwork. I just happen to work for a company who does.
Contrary to popular ignorance, seeing the Windows source is pretty trivial and a massive amount of people outside of Microsoft have seen it, including any 'white hat' worth his salt.
I'm sorry that every 'joe random teenage hax0r' doesn't have the source but the reality of it is there are far more people putting effort into doing bad things with exploits they find than there is doing good things.
You're trying to use a battle cry that no one with common sense and experience in the industry uses.
I'd be willing to bet more people have seen the Windows source in depth than the Linux code base in depth. Sure, plenty of people have looked at the kernel source, but 99.9% of those people opened a c file, looked around, realized they had no freaking clue what they were looking at and never looked at it again ... I don't count them as they are useless. Windows has been around longer and has far more resources behind it due to its market domination.
Also, contrary to popular belief just because crowd sourcing CAN be beneficial doesn't mean that randomly throwing things at the crowd will result in anything beneficial.
blah blah blah I'm doing it right!
No, you aren't. You can not possibly find and store useful information with 100 tabs open at once, the human mind simply doesn't work that way and no matter how many times your mommy told you were special it won't change that fact.
If you have more than a handful of tabs, you're doing it wrong for MANY reasons.
Feel free to ignore me and tell me how I'm wrong but real science and research has shown you simply aren't capable of processing that much information in a useful manner.
Also, again, 'bouncing all over' is not product, as has been shown many times by many studies around the world. Your lack of focus is not a benefit, no matter how many times or ways you try to tell people it is.
Anyone with 30 tabs open is an idiot, mark me as a troll if you want, you're probably right but there is no way you can possible analyze and utilize what results from having 30 tabs open so I stand by my statement, you don't need 30 tabs, your an idiot who proposed a completely ludacris sitatuation as a reason why it doesn't suck.
Lets also note: 30 tabs in 1.5 will not be anything like 30 tabs in 3.0, regardless of hardware involved. I'm afraid that you'll find that viewing HTML is not noticably different and that for all the buggy memory leaking that 1.5 did, it was still better than 3 or 4 and seems to be able to render THE EXACT SAME PAGES.
It hasn't been just a browser for years, its an application platform that supports browsing by default, pretending that its a web browser with advanced features is retarded. Firefox is an application platform that happens to support the web well.
1.5 and 2 were nothing like 3.x, you don't need to comment on how well they perform if you can't tell the difference. Again, mark me as a troll if you want, but you're trying to pretend the current mess that is known as firefox is anything like 2 versions back.
Mozilla has 0 direction and it shows in what they produce. They stopped caring about what the set out to produce and now its turned into anarchy where every retarded feature makes it in.
You make a new version because you have something to offer, not because a new version will give you a marketing campaign. Firefox seems to have forgotten the point in writing software and are more or less pulling a Microsoft.
Time to revoke some of the ridiculous salaries of Mozilla's leadership since it seems to have turned them into morons.
I was heavily invested in Gecko, had it implemented as a core component of the next 5-6 years of our companies software development. Their direction and lack of ability to provide a stable platform resulted in my department completely ripping gecko out of our products and replacing it with alternatives. We found that it was easier to maintain native ports for GUI work than to track firefox. Now we just use native GUI code for the gui and webkit for the display of HTML.
Please explain to me the difference in BROWSING between 1.5 and 3.0. Don't tell me about all the crap thrown in that the browser does, tell me about what you REALLY CAN NOTICE is DIFFERENT in the rendering between 1.5 and 3.x or hell, 4.0.
Sorry if I don't wait around while you look.
MS owns some of the h264 patents.
They get money for each license sold, why would they want to support WebM which will give them no money and they have absolutely no control over.
h264 is controlled by many companies that all have to agree in order for something to change.
WebM is controlled by one that doesn't have to wait for anyone to make a change, they can do it on a whim.
Uhm, they are already running an expense by developing this software and giving it away for free.
You're creeped out by people using the standard definition of open standard rather than the Stallman definition of open standard?
Sucks to be you, too bad most of the rest of the world disagrees with you.
To say that Google doesn't 'own' them is to not understand how these licenses work.
Google owns the copyright, the license does not change that. They may not be able to revoke the license on existing bits of code already out there, but that doesn't stop them from changing the rules tomorrow to suit their wants for all future modifications.
And of course, the exact same thing applies to x264.
I won't even start on the fact that regardless of what you think an OSS license has 0 affect on patents being used against you.
And that is different than WebM how?
Let me explain it too you.
WebM is controlled entirely by Google, they can do anything they want with it, including telling you to go fuck yourself tomorrow because its established now and they want royalties ... all because Eric's wife wants a new sail boat.
On the other hand.
In order for the x264 licensing agreement to change, the holders of all of the 1000 or so patents involved have to agree on a change. That means Microsoft, Apple, LG, France Telecom, DEAWOOD, Toshibia and many others all have to agree on new terms ...
Which do you REALLY think is more likely to happen?
FOSS software forces me to do MANY thing the way the authors wanted it even though I have the skills to change it. I don't have the time to change it.
For the record, I also have the skills to pretty much mangle any commercial software package into doing what I want as well, without the source, binaries are just another form of code to be deciphered. But I don't ... because I don't have the time.
As far as FOSS not having restrictions ... ever FOSS license except public domain is a list of restrictions placed on what you can do with the software, its retarded to say it has no restrictions when the license itself is nothing more than a list of restrictions. You DO know FOSS software is still licensed right?
Yes, except by licensing h264 the patent responsibility is on them, not you, so this hogwash about 'omg scary patents' is just a retarded FUD excuse.
I'm sorry, WHY can't it be used as a plugin? All firefox has to do is support the codecs installed on my Windows machine and it'll have h264 support as I have it for other reasons, and every other app on my system doesn't seem to be unable to use those codecs ...
The browser developer doesn't have to pay if they don't use it, they just have to make provisions so someone else can sell it or give it away if they want to pay the fees.
The license fees are so ridiculously cheap that you could write it off as a cost of doing business and it wouldn't even be worth mentioning on the balance sheets. Hell, saying you support h264 so the video will play on the iPhone/iPad in your advertisements would be worth the $10k cost per year (price for 1million units or more).
But back to my original point, please cite specifically where Firefox would be unable to use h264 for any reason other than their own artificial reasons.
I would gladly pay for many Linux packages at $0.10 a piece, hell much more than that.
I won't pay, however, for the thousands of shitty half completed Linux apps that are pawned off as 'alternatives to commercial software' when they are no where NEAR the same level of quality.
Of course, Linux distributions, just like Microsoft Windows distributions could bundle a bunch of shit together and charge one price for the package instead of 10 cents per package and sell it too me for $100. They'd have to raise the bar from a usability standpoint, but its not out of the question and it could actually be used to fund development.
Really? Microsoft HAS to do what everyone else does?
What world have you be living in because I've been fighting Microsoft not following what everyone does for the last 15 years. I don't think I was ever around for the time when MS followed someone else standards (with the exception of IP and Kerberos that I can think of).
MS won't change because of this, and websites will still do what MS says if they want to stay relevant. Slashdot might not, but major websites will, including Google.
Fee has nothing do to with open.
Pretty much every OSS license in existence fully accepts charging fees for the software distribution. You could not possibly be more wrong, nor could you possibly be any more obviously a freeloader.
What you mean is because it has a 'fee' it is not 'Free'. Open has nothing to do with your argument.
And what you mean by free is not free as in libre, its free as in no cost, again, absolutely no relation what so ever to open.
What you mean by 'OPEN' is 'FREE RIDE'. You need to learn engrish a little better me thinks.
Its completely normal to pay for standards, I'm guessing you've just never worked in the position to know that. People pay to license open standards all day long.
Richard Stallman doesn't define open, neither do you, and you both have the wrong definition.
And you don't have to pay that $100k until you get into the millions of units distributed.
For small independent developers the fee is $0. If you get popular, yes, you have to pay, but the tiers for payment are extremely cheap compared to the distribution size.
After 100k units (below that is no royalty charge) I believe it is, your price per unit is about $0.025 USD .... thats right ... 3 cents per unit, and it does nothing but go down from there.
Hes' a military service member.
JAG officers are free to all service personal, regardless of their ability to pay for it.
This is a high profile cause and it will have the high end JAG lawyers involved on both sides.
He would be a complete idiot to get civilian counsel when the best he could get out of it is someone who USED to practice military law and is now out practicing on their own in civilian courts after being released from military service.
In short, if he 'pays' for lawyers with any money he'll be giving himself a less capable lawyer.
What money they 'donate' to his legal defense is silly and unneeded.
As for the way he's being treated, there really isn't any doubt in anyones mind that he did what he's accused of, with that in mind he should probably get used to the way he's being treated because he's going to continue being treated that way for a LONG time.
These are laws and rules that were put in place before Manning even joined the service. Its well known in pretty much any country that if you commit treason you're going to get fucked. He knew what was coming to him. I feel no sympathy. His behavior was unacceptable in every sense of the word, especially since there were other outlets to handle the situation that he never bothered to attempt to use. He could, of course, have brought his information to oh ... say ... an AMERICAN newspaper or news tv program? I'd feel completely different had he done so.
He literally gave away classified material to a foreign entity. He committed treason, clearly, wether it was right or wrong for him to do it, he still clearly committed premeditated treason. To expect him to be treated as anything other than a horrible criminal because he might have done something good would result in many idiots (just like him) who think they are doing 'the right thing' when they also commit treason because he didn't get off so bad. What you see now is one of the most effective deterrents available. Don't want to do the time, don't commit the fucking crime, and most certainly don't cry to me about it after you get caught.
As for his stent in Solitary, the alternative is that he could be put in with the general population. I suspect that he wouldn't survive more than a few days before someone killed him. Even criminals have standards, he's a rat, and rats live just slightly longer than child molesters in prison.
If you want him to live, you want him in solitary.