On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 01:18:21AM -0500, willhill wrote: > Non free software can only provide an illusion of control to the user and > hardware owner. If LSU used free software for the same kind of administrative > control, they would have it for real. As it is, LSU shares that control with > the software's real owners who have granted themselves the right to search, > modify or destroy files and to revoke use of that software at any time. What > a shame.
You are not wrong, but just like buying a service from an ISP, the customer buys their products under usage agreements and terms of service. This is no different, and you seem to think that the /choice/ to buy and use any number of similar products does not exist. LSU /chose/ under its own power (by virtue of the folks hired to decide) to buy and implement this, and if they don't understand the user agreements or potential technical consequences then that is their problem. Users of LSU's network (and computers) can chose to use what LSU provides or not - that is where /their/ power lies. There is no God given right for the users' of LSU's network (or Cox's, etc) to ignore any rules setforth by the OWNERS of the network. > > Some people don't mind that kind of control. Well, good luck to them! The > top heavy network control demanded will be a technical dissaster if they ever > try to apply it directly because it will override the opinion, experience and > hard work of all but a few of LSU's computer administration. I'm sure you > would complain, Dustin, if someone did the same to you. I can't speak for Dustin, but if I bought and implemented a solution that caused headaches and problems down the line, then guess who's problem this is - that's right, MINE. In your zealously you fail to see the fallacy of your arguments. The choice /is/ there, but once that choice is made, the chooser is subject to the consequences. I repeat that you might not be wrong about the technical inferiority of the solution (I have no idea), but you are dead wrong to say that there is any kind of evilness or wrong doing going on. By mandating that a person or orgranization only use software from a particular source, you are taking away the right to choose - and THAT is the real evil in this situation. You need to realize that our economy is based on consumer choice, and you are advocating the elimination of this choice. You and I may not like the company, their practices, or the product, but I would rather have the right to choose (a crappy product) than allow myself to be spoonfed something because it is someone else's moral imperative. > > Your chance might come sooner than you think. Check out these brain dead > ideas from everyone's friend, Richard Clarke: > > http://tinyurl.com/39n7my You can go march on DC, but I'll sit back and let the market decide what happens. The "Internet" whether you want to admit it or not does not run on publicly owned "tubes", and the US Government has no right to force the owners of these networks to be "neutral". You can sign all the petitions you want, yell as loudly as you can, and spam as many lists as possible, but at the end of the day (and remember these words): the market will decide what happens. Why? Because of the component of choice - the very thing you wish to take away from everyone else to advance your sense of right. > > > On Wednesday 03 October 2007 8:48 am, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > I'll be honest: I'm completely lost in this conversation. I don't know > > what you're saying anymore. > > > > willhill wrote: > > > Only free software can provide control over any computer. > > > > > > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 12:50 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > >> the most powerful packages to implement that control are > > >> themselves open source. > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General at brlug.net > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net -- HPC Enablement Group Louisiana Optical Network Initiative http://www.loni.org 225-578-1920
