what about companies that sell open source products?
I guess that when a closed-source company sells you a proprietary product, that closed-source company is accepting a certain amount of liability for that proprietary product (unless you clearly absolve them of this liability via a legal contract). If the product fails to work as advertised, causes damages that it shouldn't cause, etc then the closed-source company is liable. Of course, none of this applies to open-source vendors like Red Hat, SuSE or IBM who sells software with hardware.
That's okay of course, since as soon as there are no vendors of open-source software, the open-source community will begin growing exponentially, and those corporate leeches of the community's quality products will have been taught a lesson.
In other words, OpenSSL isn't accountable, but with such a precedent, SuSE, Red Hat, IBM could be.
Man, it's like, he is running some UNIX-like operating system, and he can't find the Internet Explorer command... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! Hahaha! Man, with such skillfully crafted humor, you should take that show ON THE ROAD! And the gear icon reference... that is so far out of LEFT FIELD!
Score: -51 for saying "UNIX-like" and not Linux. Karma: A pile of stinking shit.
They are working very hard to be clever. Here in america, we reward *effort*. You have to admit, these people, with their "disadvantages" that range from morbid obesity to extreme social disorders (and almost all have a severe case of the uglies) are giving it their best when it comes to pointing out things that make them angry. Whether it is the giant corporations that have ruined life as we know it, or near-giant coporations that wish to ruin life as we know it, these crafty pseudonyms let us, the readers, know that the author of the comment has some issues with a company. A company with a name *similar* to that which he or she is writing. They are making a poignant statement that only "those in the know" can decipher.
I say: "Bravo!" Bravo to these unfortunate individuals who have climbed mountain after mountain of challenges to share with us, their opinion of a corporate entity in such a subtle way.
Why was this labelled "Troll"? Because it's the truth? Why should countries that are successful, that have the technology and knowledge, be the ones who take care of the poor countries?
Really, what is the basis for assuming that the rich owe the poor anything, especially when they have no realation to them? Apparently, some people believe that it is immoral to not care if some poor, helpless person in some unknown foreign country dies. The cheerleaders of "saving the children of the world", are teeming with ambiguous morality. Why should those who succeed suffer so that those who fail prosper? How does that make sense? What circumstances make taking away something from a person right? Because they are rich and therefore will suffer less? You'd have to be pretty "niave" to think that.
If poor countries want to earn their keep, they can always be test subjects.:)
1. Replace something that is already there. 2. Code everything from scratch. (doesn't matter if anyone has done it better already, just put lots of items in the TODO file to make project look "promising") 3. Put crap code under license that removes the rights of the developer.
Not sure how that's different from this, except that Microsoft makes a lot of "money" and open source software companies simply don't.
I am relieved to find that the competent officials not only seized the students computer, but also his scanner and printer. Thank GOD. That man had the capability to start copying and distributing WRITTEN PICTURES AND WORDS!!! Nice one, OSU, nip piracy in the bud.
Whenever I read an article on why companies are afraid to implement a *free* solution to their problems, I always end up seeing one resounding answer:
"Who would be to blame for fauilure?"
It just makes me wonder what that means. What is going to happen? If Joe's Bread Shop (You've seen the commercial) loses oodles of money do to some vulnerability in their NT system, what good is it to have that worthless reassurance that there is someone to blame? You.
A good reason why I like FreeBSD/Linux? If it goes down, most likely, close to %99.9999999 of the time it is my own fault.
And Microsoft was glowing with joy about the eBay thing....
Yeah, sometimes I like to settle down with a nice cup of Microsoft and relax. I think to myself, "I LOVE LIFE." Microsoft is good. Apple is good. VisualBasic is great. ApplesoftBasic is the bestest.
You sell your product, not bash on the competition. But I guess when you really have nothing to offer, you can't do anything else. This kind of flaming should be kept to news groups and/. Poor guy. What a tortured little soul.
Usually, reply to a comment in order to, well, reply to a comment. The guy was just saying "Oh I use FreeBSD, and here's the places I see FreeBSD being used", and you reply: "FreeBSD is going nowhere, it's going to die." Really, were you trying to reply to that post to make the poster say, "Wow, I better stop using FreeBSD!", or, did you really mean to post this as a separate post?
However, choice is still good. I like being able to choose between Star Office's gigantor office suite and Corel's stand alone word processor. Look at the applications for the BeOS right now. There is one really good word processor, no paint programs that compare to The Gimp or PhotoShop, one damn good web browser, (using it right now) and a couple sound applications. I know that the software is slowly coming, but without all the choices (like Linux has), I get kind of frustrated. I think that a good middle ground will surface from this, and sacrifice some configurablilty for ease of use. (Aren't I one to point out the obvious! =])
Anyway, I really think that Linux has a fighting chance against NT5 on the desktop, as long as people continue filling out bug reports, and programmers squish the bugs.
Hah! I've got a larger network in my dorm room. Besides, what the hell are you saying? That you don't have the problems slashdot posters say, or you do? -- "(we) don't incur the lack of NT stability issues many allude to on/."
I am sure that happens a couple times out of a thousand "break-ins", but you have to admit the percentage of people who would actually let the owner of the computer (or sysadmin) know about their security flaws is probably pretty slim.
troop movements not considered top-secret???
on
CNN on "hackers"
·
· Score: 0
Maybe the "Dutch hackers" walked up to the DOD's front door and asked nicely for the info. Or maybe they saved themselves a trip and called. After all, as long as the information isn't on a computer, it has got to be safe. =]
Slashdot Mirror
The parent poster is engaged to a woman 6 years younger.
Is he 18-22 years old, perhaps? That's disgusting.
good point. the problem is that people think their lives are more important than they really are simply because they are theirs...
nice nick/sig. Listening to vic acid right now.
Orange, green, blue and purple! Made all the games look like you were on some horrible drug.
I guess that when a closed-source company sells you a proprietary product, that closed-source company is accepting a certain amount of liability for that proprietary product (unless you clearly absolve them of this liability via a legal contract). If the product fails to work as advertised, causes damages that it shouldn't cause, etc then the closed-source company is liable. Of course, none of this applies to open-source vendors like Red Hat, SuSE or IBM who sells software with hardware.
That's okay of course, since as soon as there are no vendors of open-source software, the open-source community will begin growing exponentially, and those corporate leeches of the community's quality products will have been taught a lesson.
In other words, OpenSSL isn't accountable, but with such a precedent, SuSE, Red Hat, IBM could be.
Score: -1 (use of "corporate leeches")
HAW HAW HAW!
Man, it's like, he is running some UNIX-like operating system, and he can't find the Internet Explorer command... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! Hahaha! Man, with such skillfully crafted humor, you should take that show ON THE ROAD! And the gear icon reference... that is so far out of LEFT FIELD!
Score: -51 for saying "UNIX-like" and not Linux.
Karma: A pile of stinking shit.
They are working very hard to be clever. Here in america, we reward *effort*. You have to admit, these people, with their "disadvantages" that range from morbid obesity to extreme social disorders (and almost all have a severe case of the uglies) are giving it their best when it comes to pointing out things that make them angry. Whether it is the giant corporations that have ruined life as we know it, or near-giant coporations that wish to ruin life as we know it, these crafty pseudonyms let us, the readers, know that the author of the comment has some issues with a company. A company with a name *similar* to that which he or she is writing. They are making a poignant statement that only "those in the know" can decipher.
I say: "Bravo!" Bravo to these unfortunate individuals who have climbed mountain after mountain of challenges to share with us, their opinion of a corporate entity in such a subtle way.
(Score: -1, Mentioning morbid obesity)
Why was this labelled "Troll"? Because it's the truth? Why should countries that are successful, that have the technology and knowledge, be the ones who take care of the poor countries?
:)
Really, what is the basis for assuming that the rich owe the poor anything, especially when they have no realation to them? Apparently, some people believe that it is immoral to not care if some poor, helpless person in some unknown foreign country dies. The cheerleaders of "saving the children of the world", are teeming with ambiguous morality. Why should those who succeed suffer so that those who fail prosper? How does that make sense? What circumstances make taking away something from a person right? Because they are rich and therefore will suffer less? You'd have to be pretty "niave" to think that.
If poor countries want to earn their keep, they can always be test subjects.
I'm so American, only caring about myself!
Oooh, how heartless!
Yeah, that is nothing like how most OSS works:
1. Replace something that is already there.
2. Code everything from scratch. (doesn't matter if anyone has done it better already, just put lots of items in the TODO file to make project look "promising")
3. Put crap code under license that removes the rights of the developer.
Not sure how that's different from this, except that Microsoft makes a lot of "money" and open source software companies simply don't.
I am relieved to find that the competent officials not only seized the students computer, but also his scanner and printer. Thank GOD. That man had the capability to start copying and distributing WRITTEN PICTURES AND WORDS!!! Nice one, OSU, nip piracy in the bud.
Finally, someone who thinks the same! Tack onto your list, Brian Eno and King Tubby too.
I was amazed that BestBuy was carrying SuSE. I looked at the price tag and almost fell over. =]
~$30 For 5 CDs 60 day support and a 450pg manual.
Hahaha. Redhat is ~$80
calx
Whenever I read an article on why companies are afraid to implement a *free* solution to their problems, I always end up seeing one resounding answer:
"Who would be to blame for fauilure?"
It just makes me wonder what that means. What is going to happen? If Joe's Bread Shop (You've seen the commercial) loses oodles of money do to some vulnerability in their NT system, what good is it to have that worthless reassurance that there is someone to blame? You.
A good reason why I like FreeBSD/Linux? If it goes down, most likely, close to %99.9999999 of the time it is my own fault.
And Microsoft was glowing with joy about the eBay thing....
calx
See the subject.
Oh yeah, NT still sucks ass.
your friend, calx
Apple -> 10,000 registered developers.
Be -> 10,000 registered developers.
Major media related software/hardware companies supporting the BeOS nearly every week.
(Check http://www.beoscentral.com)
Your days are numbered.
calx
Yeah, sometimes I like to settle down with a nice cup of Microsoft and relax.
I think to myself, "I LOVE LIFE."
Microsoft is good.
Apple is good.
VisualBasic is great.
ApplesoftBasic is the bestest.
Are you sure?
/criticism/ also involves suggestions.
ie, what exactly is wrong with Linux.
This is just bashing.
You sell your product, not bash on the competition. /.
But I guess when you really have nothing to offer, you can't do anything else. This kind of flaming should be kept to news groups and
Poor guy. What a tortured little soul.
calx
[dart]
6:54PM up 950 days, 23:01, 398 users, load averages: 51.01, 51.01, 52.00
=]
TEE HEE!
Usually, reply to a comment in order to, well, reply to a comment.
The guy was just saying "Oh I use FreeBSD, and here's the places I see FreeBSD being used", and you reply: "FreeBSD is going nowhere, it's going to die." Really, were you trying to reply to that post to make the poster say, "Wow, I better stop using FreeBSD!", or, did you really mean to post this as a separate post?
However, choice is still good. I like being able to choose between Star Office's gigantor office suite and Corel's stand alone word processor. Look at the applications for the BeOS right now. There is one really good word processor, no paint programs that compare to The Gimp or PhotoShop, one damn good web browser, (using it right now) and a couple sound applications. I know that the software is slowly coming, but without all the choices (like Linux has), I get kind of frustrated. I think that a good middle ground will surface from this, and sacrifice some configurablilty for ease of use. (Aren't I one to point out the obvious! =])
Anyway, I really think that Linux has a fighting chance against NT5 on the desktop, as long as people continue filling out bug reports, and programmers squish the bugs.
But I still like the BeOS.
Agreed, thank you for clarifying. I just couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.
=]
Hah! I've got a larger network in my dorm room. /."
Besides, what the hell are you saying? That you don't have the problems slashdot posters say, or you do? --
"(we) don't incur the lack of NT stability issues many allude to on
Tanks! (spelled wrong purpose on, you for.)
calx
I am sure that happens a couple times out of a thousand "break-ins", but you have to admit the percentage of people who would actually let the owner of the computer (or sysadmin) know about their security flaws is probably pretty slim.
Maybe the "Dutch hackers" walked up to the DOD's front door and asked nicely for the info. Or maybe they saved themselves a trip and called. After all, as long as the information isn't on a computer, it has got to be safe.
=]