Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

you have microsoft in ur butt

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-19 17:48

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: Anonymous 2010-11-20 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.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List