I'm writing to you from the perspective of a concerned citizen, knowledgable computer user, afficionado, and programmer.
I would like to express at once my utter disgust and my state of bafflement over my attempts to use your wireless internet.
I do not intend to be curt or professional.
The software requirements for connecting to the network are completely ridiculous.
A security stack based on the forced use of Microsoft operating systems is completely ridiculous.
Expecting users to install software services on their computer just to connect, is completely ridiculous.
All this trouble because I choose to use Linux. I could probably get online by doing something REALLY simple that involves getting around CCA, but that would violate your use policy by removing a restriction myself.
I am aware that many people do not know how to use a computer, administer their own system, or even how to prevent virii from spreading.
I know this because I've seen what can happen at a university regarding the spread of worms myself.
I've seen complete disregard for shared access, with people who run smtp bots, flood bots, and bandwidth-hogging ptp programs.
But these facts do not come close to justifying the harsh and unintelligent "security" measures you've implemented.
This is not my opinion.
What is my opinion is that your IT departments must either be braindead stupid or that you and your superiors are so bribed by corporate interests as to not consider any other solutions.
I've seen users switch to Linux and love it. I've seen them develop an interest in technological learning, including how to program, over the change. Using a computer carries responsibility. Creating software and encouraging its use carries even more. One of these responsibilities is freedom and openness, which leads to expanded usability as well as security at the user level.
Locking people into using proprietary software accomplishes nothing. It restricts peoples freedom as well as their understanding of computers. It is a downward spiral that only leads to more specialization. It's not that Microsoft writes poor code, per se, but the fact that time and time again they've demonstrated to have no scruples and no regard for the rights, privacy or freedom of its customers or competitors.
So, my suggestion is the following:
Change your supported operating platform to GNU, DELETE all proprietary software, INSTALL free software.
Sell back all your leased and overpriced CISCO hardware. You don't need it.
Form an advisory consortium out of staff members with student interns to guide the process.
Form a technical thinktank to build a new network from scratch, out of reliable but second-hand standard PC hardware.
Use free software and open platforms and encourage students and faculty to do the same. (Those CD printing kiosks are pretty useful)
If your goals include innovation and education these suggestions should be fitting.
If your goals are profit and shoving Microsoft's kawk so far up peoples' asses that they'll never remove it, for the rest of your life, keep doing what you're doing.
Universities and colleges used to write their own programs and operating systems. What happened?
>> @cscc.edu,@franklin.edu
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-19 17:55
>>1 Universities and colleges used to write their own programs and operating systems. What happened?
They were enslaved by Microsoft. End of story.
But only in the USA; In europe, it's still very common for Universities to either write their own Operating Systems, or just use THE LUNIX
I've seen users switch to Linux and love it
I've seen users switch to Linux, scream uncontrollably until they pass out, and then switch back to Windows.
>>6 ````````implying'''''''' you have to look like a hippie to use THE LUNIX
Also, GNU just wants to call LUNIX their own, because they never managed to ship anything useful. So RMS does what every jew in his position would do: steal some OS and call it his own.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-19 22:15
>sell back your overpriced CISCO hardware, you don't need it.
HA!
You sir, are a fucking retard.
Almost all non-tech employees will have very little idea how to use a computer.
Windows is all they've ever used and they've never even heard of Linux (Hell, they've probably never even heard of CrApple macs).
Now, imagine each employee earns their company $200 a day.
Buying a Windows license for that employee's computer will probably cost about $150.
If you suddenly decide to switch their operating system the employee will be completely lost; they'll have to relearn how to do everything. Depending on the person in question this could take days or weeks or even months; we'll assume that it takes 4 days to acclimatise to the new setup (We're pretending everybody is a fast learner).
Now, 4 days of lost productivity to lrn2linux is 4*$200 = $800 loss.
A Windows license costs roughly $150.
It's pretty damn obvious which solution is cheaper.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-19 23:50
>>1
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
It really gets tiresome that RMS relies on rhetoric, slogans and FUD instead of impartially informing people about their options with open source licenses. He is as much an extremist about his brand of open source licensing as Steve Balmer is of proprietary software. So people just go around rattling off about "free software" without understanding what it means legally and see it as a movement (which is how RMS wants them to see it) rather than as a healthy choices that coexist with proprietary and mixed open/closed licenses. There is nothing wrong with people using systems with "open source only" software. But when they force it down other peoples throats, they are as bad or worse than proprietary software.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 1:33
>>12
It's a sad fact that GNU/Lunatics are, well... Lunatics.
While I openly encourage the use of, and personally like Opensource, the whole GNU movement just makes the whole thing look ridicolous.
The GPL alone contains text that shouldn't be in ANY License:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works [...]
Or
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price [...]
Etc. The license reads like a "poetry gone wrong".
Name:
VIPPER2010-11-20 4:29
I like to use GNU/linux because the userland is utter shit, besides android runs linux too from what i heard, i dont hear complains about google stealing that.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 7:37
>>12,13
These "lunatics" gave you GNU/Linux, gcc and Emacs.
That is why RMS furiously interjects for a moment whenever someone omits the GNU part: because he hates the "pragmatic" approach popularized in no small part by Linus Tarballs himself, and he hates it even more when GNU/[sup]Linux[sup] is used as an example of the fruitfulness of said approach, which is a blatant lie and shameless propaganda.
Proprietary software is slavery. "Moderates" like yourself want to see Free labor as "just a healthy choice that coexists with slavery", used whenever it's more profitable to employ free workers than slaves.
"There's nothing wrong with people using systems with "abolitionist only" software," -- you announce condescendingly, -- "but you shouldn't force your anti-slavery software down people's throats, when abolitionists do that they are no better than slavers."
>>15
gcc and Emacs are both horridly designed jokes of software, that's why RMS tries to steal credit for other peoples' achievements; those done in the name of the GNU suck
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 8:09
>>15
Comparing slavery to propriety software is stupid.
Please explain how it is slavery; and do this with facts, not silly nonsensical rants
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 9:23
>>12,13
You can't meaningfully criticise RMS or other "free software activists" (such as myself) for free software specific rhetoric when you don't even know about our premises. What you're doing now is attacking strawmen (attacking misrepresentations of our position). Here are some ideas that you (as well as countless others) misunderstand.
Idea 1, this is the major premise behind our rhetoric: one computer user cannot live in freedom whenever one chooses to accept proprietary software; to accept proprietary software means tolerating a life of helplessness and tolerating a life of social division. I am implying that one's choice to actively reject proprietary software means that one may live a life that is free and socially upstanding.
Idea 2: There are different philosophies behind 'Open Source software' and 'user freedom software (AKA. free software)': one is a social and political movement intended to promote control for individuals and sharing with their communities; one is a software development methodology. It is possible to have one without the other (though these two philosophies are often practised simultaneously).
Idea 3: The GPL is a 'licence to convey computer software'; it works when one chooses to convey the licensed software to a third party. The prelude in the GPL describes the intent of the licence and is not a licensing term in itself.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 9:32
>>18
blah blah fucking blah.
shut up you cunt, i'm sick of listening you talk (type?) out your ass.
go masturbate to gnu/rms's blog posts you pathetic loser.
btw i'm drunk so disregard this post
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 9:40
>>17
In slavery, the indiviual slave must appeal towards the goodwill of the her master if she wants help for herself - she does not implicitly choose to help herself, she must get explicit permission beforehand.
This is also true for proprietary software. A proprietary software user has chosen a life of helplessness. She must first get explicit permission to use software in a certain manner (within business, education, military, non-profit, privately). This user must appeal to the goodwill of the software master for improvements and changes to the software.
In slavery, the communities of slaves are forbidden to co-operate to help improve the wellbeing of the whole community. This is true of proprietary software - users are forbidden to share the software and users are forbidden to share changes and improvements to the software.
Threatening to move to a different proprietary software master does nothing to improve the indiviual's freedom - the individual chooses to change masters.
>>15 because he hates the "pragmatic" approach popularized in no small part by Linus Tarballs himself
I'll give you an A for honesty on that one, I think RMS really does hate Torvalds for simply being pragmatic
And as for the slavery analogy, you are almost there. I am a "Moderate" in that I think proprietary software is pure capitalism and open source software is pure communism. My political stance is Socialist which is in the middle of these two extremes (in the style of Social Democrat parties of western european nations). Pure capitalism never works which is why the USA has social welfare programs to make up for the lack in the economy providing a shelter in times of need. And also in industry open standards are used to maintain fair competition and prevent monopolistic takeovers by one company. Pure communism never works either, ever. Even the USSR tried to do away with money and make an economy built on trading services. It was an honorable attempt to create fairness that did not and could not work. So yes, the same rhetoric is being chattered that Capitalism is Slavery. Im 45 years old, I grew up during the cold war and heard that line before by all the communist nations that existed back then. Communism fell and only moderates communism and socialism still exist.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 10:03
>>20
and thanks for the insight into the FSF agenda, I will make people aware that FSF is trying to abolish all proprietary software as "slavery"
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 10:11
>>22
It's not the pragmatism that RMS hates. RMS doesn't hate Torvalds. RMS says that Torvalds's politics is amoral which means that Torvalds is not an a good role model for freedom.
RMS considers proprietary software to be a social problem and free software to be the moral solution to that social problem. What RMS hates is the pratise of tolerating this social problem for the sake of marketing.
RMS hates it when people are loose with their language within the context of intellectual discussion. Loose language leads to confusion. RMS defines operating system to mean "the collection of fundamental computer software that makes a computer useful". By this definition, Linux is not an OS in itself. By other definitions of OS, only the kernel program is the OS. Guess which definiion RMS uses.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 10:22
RMS hates it when people are loose with their language within the context of intellectual discussion.
no, RMS founded FSF on very loose wording of legal property ownership. Once in a while when pressed RMS will let slip his true agenda which is that "Proprietary software is slavery". That is very explicit wording, do away with all proprietary software, no ambiguity there. But later when RMS realizes he has exposed himself he retreats back into vague rhetoric like: RMS considers proprietary software to be a social problem and free software to be the moral solution to that social problem.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 10:43
>>25
I don't understand your point about the establishment of the FSF.
Once in a while when pressed RMS will let slip his true agenda which is that "Proprietary software is slavery" ... proprietary software to be a social problem
Perfect! You have got the point of it all! Proprietary software is a social problem. The social problem of proprietary software can be compared to the social problem of slavery. I wish everybody who owns a computer would understand this meme.
The point of the free software movement is to create awareness of this meme and awareness of the solution! I don't understand why you would consider this meme to be vague.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 10:50
>>26
RMS wants to do away with all proprietary software and force people to use only open source software, its not just a "solution" that will replace proprietary software in certain situations.
RMS tries to hide legal ramifications that his license calls for software to always remain open source by trying to make it a political issue instead of a legal/ownership issue
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 11:04
>>24
oh, and to the point about what a complete OS is, Linux gives the user FREEDOM to choose the utilities wants to include with the kernel. When someone makes these choices they have made their own distro, each distro is not its own OS. RMS wants to take away peoples FREEDOM to choose utilities or at least severely mask the contents and the creators of these utilities by having his FSF take credit for all utilities used by the Linux kernel
So you don't understand any of our points. Let me try again. Here are the arguments:
This legal issue is a political issue
This ownership issue is a political issue
The free software movement is a political movement.
The free software movement deals with the power a software owner has over her users
Software owners should not have power over their users.
All software owners will ask their users to be helpless and divided.
The solution to this political issue is to a plea to reject all software owners and the desire to be helpless and divided.
The solution to this political issue is to a plea to reject all proprietary software.
Open source is a software development method.
Open source is all about developing better software.
Open source has nothing to do with the free software movement
RMS tries to hide legal ramifications that his license calls for software to always remain open source by trying to make it a political issue instead of a legal/ownership issue
RMS's license doesn't call for software to remain open source.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-20 12:42
RMS's license doesn't call for software to remain open source.
yes it does, its the defining factor of the JPL license in respect to other open source licenses
software slavery communism social problem political movement FREEDOM AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAH
This thread is full of shit and you should ｆｅｅｌｂａｄａｂｏｕｔｉｔ：（
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-21 2:49
>>31
Except it doesn't. Open source is about developing software within public view. GPL permits private usage and private development.
>>33
The freedom of the user is more important that that of the developer. This author believes that the software developer should be able to control the user. This is why he is confused.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-21 3:15
>>36
A user doesn't have any need for the source code..........
I think you're the one who's confused
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-21 3:21
>>37
Users can have zero source code comprehension. No user needs any aptitude to practise their freedom. If a user needs help for anything, it is the user's responsibility to find someone who can help.