Thank you for discussing this book. I will be sure to check it out.
I think that in the not-too-distant future, this kind of legal knowledge will be a bit of a prerequisite. This is especially true as awareness of the value of open source continues to spread, and more and more companies and people turn to open source as a cost effective tool. Check out "No More Stock" at this page: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep 2004/tc20040922_8372_tc024.htm With that, we can expect to see more and more proprietary software vendors who are feeling the heat of open source competition to stretch the very limits of any contract or license agreement.
Knowing the legal limits *as a court would interpret them* will be crucial for open source developers world wide.
This in and of itself will not be the end of spyware. However, I believe that this is a starting point from which we can eventually build a system of enforcement which will hunt for spyware and prosecute people who develop and/or utilize it.
Still, good Internet practices are a good starting point for the rest of us can implement now. This entails doing some research in addition to some common sense. Tools such as Spybot S&D and Ad-Aware are excellent in addition to being freely available and for real. There are a slew of other software claiming to be able to remove spyware when in fact they are spyware themselves! (anyone ever see the web banner ads, "Your computer may be infected with spyware..."?) Believe it or not, Microsoft actually has some good starting information for users of the Windows OS who are interested in what spyware is and how they may take some steps to protect themselves. http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/d evioussoftware.mspx
I recommend that users research as much as they can about what spyware is, the damage that it can do your your computer,your network, and your personal information. From there, one can learn some simple steps to avoid it. My personal recommendation is that if you are looking software, consider open source solutions. SourceForge is a great resource http://sourceforge.net/ Being that the code is openly available, open source is naturally not a desirable form of software for those who wish to do you harm. This does not mean that it is completely impervious to malicious coders, but at least you know that others will be able to see the code and blow the whistle upon the detection of any such inclusion.
Hmmm... interesting. How dare I say that America learns?
America is not perfect. America has made mistakes. America does make mistakes. America will make some mistakes. That is one of the downfalls of humanity - we make mistakes. What makes us different is from countries such as Russia is that we do learn from our own mistakes. America used the atom bombs in Japan to bring the war in the Pacific to a swift close. The American scientists at the time did not fully understand the full scope of the weapon that they had created. America never used them again. We have nuclear capability, but we keep the weapons for deterrent, defensive purposes only, and we will never launch a first strike with them.
America used chemical and biological warfare in Vietnam. There is enough lying and deceit about which to discuss about that war to fill several blogs. But, the U.S. has since stopped the use, manufacture, and storage of such weapons. And we have lived up to what we have said that we will do (never use chemical or biological warfare).
Americans tortured prisoners in Iraq. This was clearly wrong, and was an embarrassment to all of us. This is not how we Americans as a people do business. That being said, instead of sweeping it under the rug, American leaders dealt with it... live on International television where leaders had to answer the tough questions.
As for military personnel... One has to take the media for what it is when it reports on that. These reports provide statements like *a* Marine, *two* sailors, *some* soldiers, and so on. Often, it is the transgressions of the military that makes headlines. Never mind the fact the U.S. Military raises millions of dollars every year through the Combined Federal Campaign http://www.opm.gov/cfc/ [opm.gov] Our military personnel even donates money to organizations who have a history of objecting to the military (like Green Peace, for example). Never mind the fact that statistics amongst the military are FAR less than that of the general public. Never mind that there are military personnel who volunteer their time without any expectation of recognition through various community programs. I rarely read about these things in the media, but then again they aren't the kind of stories that would generate big bucks for the news, either. Basically, we have to keep things in perspective.
The American military personnel are a professional work force that is honorable, diligent, courageous, and committed to defending America and America's interests. They support America in spite of liberal whiners who think that the answer to world peace is simply for America to throw down its arms. This would be like a cop throwing down his weapon in the hopes that the criminal would do the same. The idea is ludicrous, like most other liberal ideas, that the United States should just throw away our weapons, come whimpering home, and then believe that the meanies would just leave us alone.
Although we make mistakes, my friend, we learn from them. In a way, one might be able to argue that others in the world learn from the United States. For example, in the 1940's the Japanese thought that America was a country of Playboys. They thought that a major strike would cause America to be passive and to beg for mercy. They learned that they had counted wrong.
I think that the company's idea may be three-fold. First of all, I am sure that they would like to have someone with some documented experience in writing malicious software to be available to test their own offerings. Secondly, I think that they perhaps would want the public (hence the public announcement) to see their hiring of known virus authors so that the customers may somehow feel secure in the thought that the company's offerings will be made that much better. Lastly, I think they may also be seeking to score some PR points by helping a former criminal youth to use his talents for productive purposes.
As for the comparison to the mad doctor, I don't think that analogy clearly represents this situation. That is, would you want a killer to operate on a loved one? No. However, would you like for law enforcement agencies to learn about how he was able to lure his victims and how he was able to murder them for a time without being caught? Certainly, police and detectives could learn much.
On that note, I am not so sure that I would get a warm fuzzy from the kid’s writing any software directly. However, if he were to be continuously trained so that his job was to write viruses for the purpose of testing security, then I think that it would be a worthwhile investment. I would also like to note that this guy, although talented in respects, was still just a kid. There are many professionals out there who, if they were crooked enough to feel the need, could write some wicked and unbelievable stuff. These folks could probably provide more for the buck for such a company without the risk of bad publicity.
This is a very insightful point that you make, and I certainly agree with you.
It is also important to remember that Google is a company that intends to make money. On the one hand, Google could refuse to adhere to China's censorship. In all honesty, what can Google really do about it? If Google decided to resist the censorship, then surely the Chinese government would pull the plug on its citizens' ability to access it. Complying with Chinese restrictions means that Google will still be accessible to the Chinese people - along with Google's ability to deliver ads which Google hopes will turn a profit. Compliance means that there is still a Chinese market; noncompliance means that there is a whole country from which they cannot earn revenue.
Still, "Google" is becoming a household name, as it were, and is to the point where people use it as a verb. Some examples of that are "'why don't you google for that information?" or "... we google as easily as we breathe..." I believe that an underlying concern among many people (although not specifically mentioned) is that Google may become powerful enough through its tremendous influence among its Internet users that it could easily become subject to corporate influences which come more to benefiting the investors than the users.
On the other hand, that's the beauty of choice. If Google becomes any sort of apparition whom we do not like, then there are other search engines eager to catch our interests. Likewise, some good old fashioned research (such as books, news papers, magazines, and other information available at local libraries) never hurts anyone.
When Google started out, they seemed to be a refreshing alternative to other larger corporate sites. Google is now becoming part of corporate America. With that, we can expect to see a more "tame" Google geared toward minimizing the making of waves for the purpose of maintaining investor confidence and ensuring a steady profit.
Is it "selling out"? Perhaps, but I think that this is the sort of thing that we can expect as a company expands and grows.
Thank you for your insight, UP. The fact that some violent people have been named John is a coincidence. On the other hand, the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were a part of a polluted variant of Islam is not coincident. Islamic extremists *are* a genuine threat to the American people. This is not an imagined theory but rather a threat that has both been announced by terrorists and acted upon. They seek to strike again.
The hard part is that we have not the technology to distinguish people who hold a sincere devotion to Islam vice those whose minds have been polluted with animosity and extremism. Although on a much more broad scale, these terrorists are along the lines of the Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. These so-called Christians do not reflect the whole of Christianity as do the Islamic extremists (terrorists) not reflect the whole of Islam. It is imperative that we closely monitor who is boarding our airlines. In my post, I did not recommend locking away everyone who is a Muslim. As a note, my sister and brother-in-law are Muslims. Finding the right balance of anticipating who is a threat and maintaining civil liberties can be a challenge. America is not about sending people to concentration camps, nor would I ever want to see our great nation go down that path.
Since we cannot read the hearts and intentions of people, we must use statistical data *in addition to* additional security measures to prevent terrorists from executing another event like 9/11. I truly regret that some people who are completely innocent and have nothing to do with the wrong doings of extremists will be scrutinized, but we must understand that these measures are being put in place as a reaction to a growing threat rather than as a measure simply for the government to find ways to encroach upon our daily lives. We are at war. There are people who would like to do us serious harm, and we must keep ourselves alert and not kid ourselves into thinking that religious faith or other statistical data is but a mere coincidence.
What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers? Statistically speaking, I believe that the prominent threat to the airlines (notice I don't say "only") comes from Arab Muslim single males between the ages of 18 and 45. This criteria certainly fit all of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers. What is interesting is that although the article mentions that the post data would be turned over, it doesn't specifically state exactly how the government will use the data in terms of homeland security.
At any rate, though, I don't think that maintaining flexible profiles for high risk passengers is such a bad idea. Some passengers may be inconvenienced; however, if it will save lives, then I am quite willing for some people to end up having their feelings hurt.
Many people of the Middle East are used to regimes that rule their people with iron fists using death and terror to control. People "stay inline" out of fear of reprisal rather than genuine support. So, freedom is a stranger to many of those people.
Consider women who are in abusive relationships. Often, women in those kinds of relationships come from homes where abuse was common. Further, even when some of these poor women manage to get out of abusive relationships, they frequently enter other similar abusive relationships. The cycle goes on and on. Anyway, when women who are used to abuse enter relationships where there is no abuse, it sometimes frightens them. They do not know what to expect. Abuse is familiar to them; it's what they know. Breaking the psychological grip of abuse is very, very difficult even when the abuse is over. Freedom leaves these women with insecure feelings of not knowing what to expect. Remember, this scenario is not true for all women in abusive relationships. Likewise, I do not go as far to say that this situation happens most of the time (though it wouldn't surprise me).
You see, the people of the Middle East are used to tyranny. The thought of a government where they get to participate may be frightening. I don't know, of course; I'm not there. But being that as it may, the fact that respondents are favorable to having elections is a good thing. Unlike others in the Middle East - say the terrorists who are trying to dismantle any hope of freedom for the people of Iraq - activists for freedom do not threaten to harm, kill, behead, cut of limbs, etc., to extort a response. People who live in regions under the control of terrorists may not respond so favorably to the same poll. This would not be because they have any love for the terrorists who control the region but rather out of simple fear of what might happen if they respond honestly.
So why did I bother bringing up the analogy of abused women? Simple. Democracy is not something that is going to happen overnight. Freedom scares a lot of these people in a way (speculation). Being that such a high percentage of the respondents (who I believe responded honestly) want elections is an indication that Iraqi people want more for their country than what the terrorists have in store. It means they have the courage to break free of the chain of violence that has dominated their lives for so long. I am sure that they may be apprehensive, and may not be so quick to launch a massive "weeding out" of the terrorists among them since the terrorists still maintain a bit of a psychological grip. I believe the Iraqi people *do* want more. I believe the elections must continue as planned. I know, though, that the terrorists may try to disrupt the elections and even go so far as to murder their own people at the polls. A terrorist will go through such lengths to maintain control. A man who wants to maintain control over a woman may even go as far to kill her to get his way. But, the poll shows that there is hope for them. The government of Iraq should keep that hope alive with their people.
I, myself, do not particularly care where Linux developers live. Notice, though, that I stated "many, many..." whereas the post states "most". I, too, did not have any statistics so I was not so bold or assuming to say "most". But, who cares? Indeed, arguing about where Linux users live is unproductive.
One thing to note, however, is that Iranian officials cited "security concerns" with using Windows. **This is merely speculation**, but I am guessing that in a way it would be more beneficial to the United States from a national security point of view if Iranians were continue to use Microsoft Windows. That is, a Microsoft-U.S. government cooperation could insert some code into future updates, service packs, and versions of Windows that would allow the government or whoever to monitor systems and gather intelligence data. So, the benefit to the American people as a whole would greatly outweigh the loss of revenue for Microsoft by allowing pirated copies of the OS containing such code to be distributed in Iran and other places in the world considered to be points of interest.
I am only guessing at all of that, but I imagine something along this line has at least crossed some minds.
At any rate, I love the community of open source. I love having the freedom to choose what runs on my computer, and the freedom to see the code so that I can see exactly what is there should I choose to do something with that information. World politics aside, I believe that we would agree more than we disagree.
What I am saying, though, is that considering world events, citing Iran as an ally to Linux would not be much of a boost (if anything, a negative) as to promoting Linux.
No, he isn't suggesting that Iran wants to support American companies. Quite the contrary, actually. Iran doesn't want to use Microsoft Windows because it is an "evil American" company - regardless of whether or not Iranians are paying for it. So, they would rather go with another OS.
The irony is, as he was pointing out, that even though Iran will not be supporting an American company, per se, the fact is that many, many of the developers in the world who contribute to Linux are Americans. So, Iran would still benefit from the intellectual work and competence of Americans.
Recent world events being what they are, I do not consider Iran's desire to adopt Linux to be much of anything about which that I would particularly care to cheer. On the other hand, if the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, or any other country outside of the Middle East were officially to adopt Linux then that would be something I would discuss with my friends and partners. But Iran? I do not consider Iran to be a prized ally for Linux or open source in general. Nope, I will just stick to reading about it in the news.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for discussing this book. I will be sure to check it out.
p 2004/tc20040922_8372_tc024.htm With that, we can expect to see more and more proprietary software vendors who are feeling the heat of open source competition to stretch the very limits of any contract or license agreement.
I think that in the not-too-distant future, this kind of legal knowledge will be a bit of a prerequisite. This is especially true as awareness of the value of open source continues to spread, and more and more companies and people turn to open source as a cost effective tool. Check out "No More Stock" at this page: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/se
Knowing the legal limits *as a court would interpret them* will be crucial for open source developers world wide.
This in and of itself will not be the end of spyware. However, I believe that this is a starting point from which we can eventually build a system of enforcement which will hunt for spyware and prosecute people who develop and/or utilize it.
d evioussoftware.mspx
Still, good Internet practices are a good starting point for the rest of us can implement now. This entails doing some research in addition to some common sense. Tools such as Spybot S&D and Ad-Aware are excellent in addition to being freely available and for real. There are a slew of other software claiming to be able to remove spyware when in fact they are spyware themselves! (anyone ever see the web banner ads, "Your computer may be infected with spyware..."?) Believe it or not, Microsoft actually has some good starting information for users of the Windows OS who are interested in what spyware is and how they may take some steps to protect themselves. http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/
I recommend that users research as much as they can about what spyware is, the damage that it can do your your computer,your network, and your personal information. From there, one can learn some simple steps to avoid it. My personal recommendation is that if you are looking software, consider open source solutions. SourceForge is a great resource http://sourceforge.net/ Being that the code is openly available, open source is naturally not a desirable form of software for those who wish to do you harm. This does not mean that it is completely impervious to malicious coders, but at least you know that others will be able to see the code and blow the whistle upon the detection of any such inclusion.
Hmmm... interesting. How dare I say that America learns?
America is not perfect. America has made mistakes. America does make mistakes. America will make some mistakes. That is one of the downfalls of humanity - we make mistakes. What makes us different is from countries such as Russia is that we do learn from our own mistakes. America used the atom bombs in Japan to bring the war in the Pacific to a swift close. The American scientists at the time did not fully understand the full scope of the weapon that they had created. America never used them again. We have nuclear capability, but we keep the weapons for deterrent, defensive purposes only, and we will never launch a first strike with them.
America used chemical and biological warfare in Vietnam. There is enough lying and deceit about which to discuss about that war to fill several blogs. But, the U.S. has since stopped the use, manufacture, and storage of such weapons. And we have lived up to what we have said that we will do (never use chemical or biological warfare).
Americans tortured prisoners in Iraq. This was clearly wrong, and was an embarrassment to all of us. This is not how we Americans as a people do business. That being said, instead of sweeping it under the rug, American leaders dealt with it... live on International television where leaders had to answer the tough questions.
As for military personnel... One has to take the media for what it is when it reports on that. These reports provide statements like *a* Marine, *two* sailors, *some* soldiers, and so on. Often, it is the transgressions of the military that makes headlines. Never mind the fact the U.S. Military raises millions of dollars every year through the Combined Federal Campaign http://www.opm.gov/cfc/ [opm.gov] Our military personnel even donates money to organizations who have a history of objecting to the military (like Green Peace, for example). Never mind the fact that statistics amongst the military are FAR less than that of the general public. Never mind that there are military personnel who volunteer their time without any expectation of recognition through various community programs. I rarely read about these things in the media, but then again they aren't the kind of stories that would generate big bucks for the news, either. Basically, we have to keep things in perspective.
The American military personnel are a professional work force that is honorable, diligent, courageous, and committed to defending America and America's interests. They support America in spite of liberal whiners who think that the answer to world peace is simply for America to throw down its arms. This would be like a cop throwing down his weapon in the hopes that the criminal would do the same. The idea is ludicrous, like most other liberal ideas, that the United States should just throw away our weapons, come whimpering home, and then believe that the meanies would just leave us alone.
Although we make mistakes, my friend, we learn from them. In a way, one might be able to argue that others in the world learn from the United States. For example, in the 1940's the Japanese thought that America was a country of Playboys. They thought that a major strike would cause America to be passive and to beg for mercy. They learned that they had counted wrong.
I think that the company's idea may be three-fold. First of all, I am sure that they would like to have someone with some documented experience in writing malicious software to be available to test their own offerings. Secondly, I think that they perhaps would want the public (hence the public announcement) to see their hiring of known virus authors so that the customers may somehow feel secure in the thought that the company's offerings will be made that much better. Lastly, I think they may also be seeking to score some PR points by helping a former criminal youth to use his talents for productive purposes.
As for the comparison to the mad doctor, I don't think that analogy clearly represents this situation. That is, would you want a killer to operate on a loved one? No. However, would you like for law enforcement agencies to learn about how he was able to lure his victims and how he was able to murder them for a time without being caught? Certainly, police and detectives could learn much.
On that note, I am not so sure that I would get a warm fuzzy from the kid’s writing any software directly. However, if he were to be continuously trained so that his job was to write viruses for the purpose of testing security, then I think that it would be a worthwhile investment. I would also like to note that this guy, although talented in respects, was still just a kid. There are many professionals out there who, if they were crooked enough to feel the need, could write some wicked and unbelievable stuff. These folks could probably provide more for the buck for such a company without the risk of bad publicity.
Thank you. You may find a post of mine related to the same topic to be interesting. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122689&cid=103 17131
This is a very insightful point that you make, and I certainly agree with you.
..." I believe that an underlying concern among many people (although not specifically mentioned) is that Google may become powerful enough through its tremendous influence among its Internet users that it could easily become subject to corporate influences which come more to benefiting the investors than the users.
It is also important to remember that Google is a company that intends to make money. On the one hand, Google could refuse to adhere to China's censorship. In all honesty, what can Google really do about it? If Google decided to resist the censorship, then surely the Chinese government would pull the plug on its citizens' ability to access it. Complying with Chinese restrictions means that Google will still be accessible to the Chinese people - along with Google's ability to deliver ads which Google hopes will turn a profit. Compliance means that there is still a Chinese market; noncompliance means that there is a whole country from which they cannot earn revenue.
Still, "Google" is becoming a household name, as it were, and is to the point where people use it as a verb. Some examples of that are "'why don't you google for that information?" or "... we google as easily as we breathe
On the other hand, that's the beauty of choice. If Google becomes any sort of apparition whom we do not like, then there are other search engines eager to catch our interests. Likewise, some good old fashioned research (such as books, news papers, magazines, and other information available at local libraries) never hurts anyone.
This is not the first time that Google has imposed some censorship over its search engine. Check out this article at WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26819
When Google started out, they seemed to be a refreshing alternative to other larger corporate sites. Google is now becoming part of corporate America. With that, we can expect to see a more "tame" Google geared toward minimizing the making of waves for the purpose of maintaining investor confidence and ensuring a steady profit.
Is it "selling out"? Perhaps, but I think that this is the sort of thing that we can expect as a company expands and grows.
Thank you for your insight, UP. The fact that some violent people have been named John is a coincidence. On the other hand, the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were a part of a polluted variant of Islam is not coincident. Islamic extremists *are* a genuine threat to the American people. This is not an imagined theory but rather a threat that has both been announced by terrorists and acted upon. They seek to strike again.
The hard part is that we have not the technology to distinguish people who hold a sincere devotion to Islam vice those whose minds have been polluted with animosity and extremism. Although on a much more broad scale, these terrorists are along the lines of the Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. These so-called Christians do not reflect the whole of Christianity as do the Islamic extremists (terrorists) not reflect the whole of Islam. It is imperative that we closely monitor who is boarding our airlines. In my post, I did not recommend locking away everyone who is a Muslim. As a note, my sister and brother-in-law are Muslims. Finding the right balance of anticipating who is a threat and maintaining civil liberties can be a challenge. America is not about sending people to concentration camps, nor would I ever want to see our great nation go down that path.
Since we cannot read the hearts and intentions of people, we must use statistical data *in addition to* additional security measures to prevent terrorists from executing another event like 9/11. I truly regret that some people who are completely innocent and have nothing to do with the wrong doings of extremists will be scrutinized, but we must understand that these measures are being put in place as a reaction to a growing threat rather than as a measure simply for the government to find ways to encroach upon our daily lives. We are at war. There are people who would like to do us serious harm, and we must keep ourselves alert and not kid ourselves into thinking that religious faith or other statistical data is but a mere coincidence.
What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers? Statistically speaking, I believe that the prominent threat to the airlines (notice I don't say "only") comes from Arab Muslim single males between the ages of 18 and 45. This criteria certainly fit all of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers. What is interesting is that although the article mentions that the post data would be turned over, it doesn't specifically state exactly how the government will use the data in terms of homeland security.
At any rate, though, I don't think that maintaining flexible profiles for high risk passengers is such a bad idea. Some passengers may be inconvenienced; however, if it will save lives, then I am quite willing for some people to end up having their feelings hurt.
Many people of the Middle East are used to regimes that rule their people with iron fists using death and terror to control. People "stay inline" out of fear of reprisal rather than genuine support. So, freedom is a stranger to many of those people.
Consider women who are in abusive relationships. Often, women in those kinds of relationships come from homes where abuse was common. Further, even when some of these poor women manage to get out of abusive relationships, they frequently enter other similar abusive relationships. The cycle goes on and on. Anyway, when women who are used to abuse enter relationships where there is no abuse, it sometimes frightens them. They do not know what to expect. Abuse is familiar to them; it's what they know. Breaking the psychological grip of abuse is very, very difficult even when the abuse is over. Freedom leaves these women with insecure feelings of not knowing what to expect. Remember, this scenario is not true for all women in abusive relationships. Likewise, I do not go as far to say that this situation happens most of the time (though it wouldn't surprise me).
You see, the people of the Middle East are used to tyranny. The thought of a government where they get to participate may be frightening. I don't know, of course; I'm not there. But being that as it may, the fact that respondents are favorable to having elections is a good thing. Unlike others in the Middle East - say the terrorists who are trying to dismantle any hope of freedom for the people of Iraq - activists for freedom do not threaten to harm, kill, behead, cut of limbs, etc., to extort a response. People who live in regions under the control of terrorists may not respond so favorably to the same poll. This would not be because they have any love for the terrorists who control the region but rather out of simple fear of what might happen if they respond honestly.
So why did I bother bringing up the analogy of abused women? Simple. Democracy is not something that is going to happen overnight. Freedom scares a lot of these people in a way (speculation). Being that such a high percentage of the respondents (who I believe responded honestly) want elections is an indication that Iraqi people want more for their country than what the terrorists have in store. It means they have the courage to break free of the chain of violence that has dominated their lives for so long. I am sure that they may be apprehensive, and may not be so quick to launch a massive "weeding out" of the terrorists among them since the terrorists still maintain a bit of a psychological grip. I believe the Iraqi people *do* want more. I believe the elections must continue as planned. I know, though, that the terrorists may try to disrupt the elections and even go so far as to murder their own people at the polls. A terrorist will go through such lengths to maintain control. A man who wants to maintain control over a woman may even go as far to kill her to get his way. But, the poll shows that there is hope for them. The government of Iraq should keep that hope alive with their people.
I, myself, do not particularly care where Linux developers live. Notice, though, that I stated "many, many..." whereas the post states "most". I, too, did not have any statistics so I was not so bold or assuming to say "most". But, who cares? Indeed, arguing about where Linux users live is unproductive. One thing to note, however, is that Iranian officials cited "security concerns" with using Windows. **This is merely speculation**, but I am guessing that in a way it would be more beneficial to the United States from a national security point of view if Iranians were continue to use Microsoft Windows. That is, a Microsoft-U.S. government cooperation could insert some code into future updates, service packs, and versions of Windows that would allow the government or whoever to monitor systems and gather intelligence data. So, the benefit to the American people as a whole would greatly outweigh the loss of revenue for Microsoft by allowing pirated copies of the OS containing such code to be distributed in Iran and other places in the world considered to be points of interest. I am only guessing at all of that, but I imagine something along this line has at least crossed some minds. At any rate, I love the community of open source. I love having the freedom to choose what runs on my computer, and the freedom to see the code so that I can see exactly what is there should I choose to do something with that information. World politics aside, I believe that we would agree more than we disagree. What I am saying, though, is that considering world events, citing Iran as an ally to Linux would not be much of a boost (if anything, a negative) as to promoting Linux.
No, he isn't suggesting that Iran wants to support American companies. Quite the contrary, actually. Iran doesn't want to use Microsoft Windows because it is an "evil American" company - regardless of whether or not Iranians are paying for it. So, they would rather go with another OS. The irony is, as he was pointing out, that even though Iran will not be supporting an American company, per se, the fact is that many, many of the developers in the world who contribute to Linux are Americans. So, Iran would still benefit from the intellectual work and competence of Americans. Recent world events being what they are, I do not consider Iran's desire to adopt Linux to be much of anything about which that I would particularly care to cheer. On the other hand, if the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, or any other country outside of the Middle East were officially to adopt Linux then that would be something I would discuss with my friends and partners. But Iran? I do not consider Iran to be a prized ally for Linux or open source in general. Nope, I will just stick to reading about it in the news.