I agree on this. I too have a Linux 'distro' created by me that isn't based on any other. It's never left my office at home, but it doesn't matter. The fact that I can do such a thing to satisfy a nitch requirement and just for the fun of it is what makes Linux so great.
My take has always been that if you make Linux appeal to the lowest common denominator like Windows, then you remove from Linux what appealed to the hacker (old school definition there) who saw in Linux that thing which inspired him back when computers were what you made of them, and not what you bought and installed on them.
As far as being an 'elite' Linux snob, well I am and unashamed to say I am. That was the whole point of Linux to me, it was an OS that wasn't shrink-wrapped and one-size-fits-all. I don't care if Linux 'wins', I just want it to remain available, and remain true to the spirit of those who have used it for years simply because it wasn't "for the masses" and not despite it.
If a company in New York opens a branch office in California, would the employees of the Cali. branch office be obligated to pay New York taxes? Of course not. Why is this man's place of employment, his home office, not considered a branch office of the company? What is the distinction?
This clearly discriminates against one form of remote office over another.
It doesn't matter what they say the info will be used for. The fact is they will be storing it, and as long as it exists there is the certainty that a lawyer will be able to convince a judge to use it for what it was never intended for.
Let's say the neighbor of a good friend is busted selling drugs. The DA could subpoena records that show you visiting that location on a regular basis, and suddenly you find yourself with a lot of unwanted and unwarranted attention.
It doesn't matter what the data is intended for, the collection of it opens a Pandora's box and the sincerity of the original party collecting the data becomes meaningless when the data vultures show up at the feast.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree on this. I too have a Linux 'distro' created by me that isn't based on any other. It's never left my office at home, but it doesn't matter. The fact that I can do such a thing to satisfy a nitch requirement and just for the fun of it is what makes Linux so great.
My take has always been that if you make Linux appeal to the lowest common denominator like Windows, then you remove from Linux what appealed to the hacker (old school definition there) who saw in Linux that thing which inspired him back when computers were what you made of them, and not what you bought and installed on them. As far as being an 'elite' Linux snob, well I am and unashamed to say I am. That was the whole point of Linux to me, it was an OS that wasn't shrink-wrapped and one-size-fits-all. I don't care if Linux 'wins', I just want it to remain available, and remain true to the spirit of those who have used it for years simply because it wasn't "for the masses" and not despite it.
If a company in New York opens a branch office in California, would the employees of the Cali. branch office be obligated to pay New York taxes? Of course not. Why is this man's place of employment, his home office, not considered a branch office of the company? What is the distinction? This clearly discriminates against one form of remote office over another.
Let's say the neighbor of a good friend is busted selling drugs. The DA could subpoena records that show you visiting that location on a regular basis, and suddenly you find yourself with a lot of unwanted and unwarranted attention.
It doesn't matter what the data is intended for, the collection of it opens a Pandora's box and the sincerity of the original party collecting the data becomes meaningless when the data vultures show up at the feast.
Why does this asinine trial drag on?