Okay, this argument is going in circles. I think the main points are:
o Will feels this is more a moral question than a technical one. o Scott (I gather) and I disagree with Will's moral findings and, speaking for myself, also feel it is more of a technical question. o That's about it. We just disagree. So, let's close this out. The horse has been officially beaten after death by everyone. Thanks. -- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices Identity Management, LDAP, and Linux Integration willhill wrote: > Scott, what you said is both insulting and wrong. I understand the issues > but > don't agree with you. It is a matter of principles and I'm not ashamed of > that. > > Your dismissal of principles is more disturbing than your insult. Technology > use should be guided by principles rather than the converse. The whole point > of the exercise is to overcome limitations and improve the world for people. > All of us must exercise moral judgment or we can be used as tools and do > things we should be ashamed of. > > I think I've got both technical and moral issues right on this one. From a > technical perspective, dumb networks are more efficient than "smart" ones. >>From a moral perspective, censorship is wrong and censorship to support > monopoly software shortcomings is doing something wrong for the sake of > something bad. You can argue that this is the way things are but that only > proves that things are not as they should be. There's no difference between > the bits I'm uploading here in this email and the same bits sent by my own > mail or web server. It's wrong for Cox to keep me from running either and > that's one aim of their goofey email filter. The problem you have pointed > out is not caused by people like me, it's caused by an OS that's so easy to > abuse that it's responsible for the majority of the world's spam. As moral > implementers of technology, we owe it to people to recommend software that > works and eliminate software that creates problems. Doing otherwise only > makes things harder. > > Networks, like software, are better when they don't have owners. Information > is always better when you can get it from the source. Network owners have a > tendency to get in the way and exploit their position. The most egregious > example of that is state controlled, broadcast media. The more control we > allow network owners to exert, the less good networks will do. > > On Tuesday 29 January 2008 11:22 pm, Scott Harney wrote: >> You either a) don't understand what I am saying or b) don't want to >> understand what I'm saying because it conflicts with your beliefs in some >> way. Whatever. > >> The various other readers of the list will make their own judgements and >> discuss the technical aspects. > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
