I'm sorry you can't comprehend that this does happen out there. 15 years of Java in 2000. 10 years of Windows 2000 in 2002. I've seen both asked. In fact, MANY times this has been covered right here on Slashdot... several years ago. Long before you ever joined the site. You should really pause to consider who the readers and posters in Slashdot are. Many of them are employers, consultants, engineers... Those with PhD's and in fields of research you'll never be a part of. Many of us work for the largest companies in the world.

Or 10 years of Windows 2000 in 2002. The answer is always the same, too... "that's what my client wants" and my answer is also always the same: "Then your client is an idiot and you can't count."

I think this'll only affect the desktop market. (why I run my desktop OSes - Linux, Windows, OSX - on a Mac instead of a PC). In the server space, though, that's big freaking money, and I think the manufacturers will be extremely reluctant to cause this trouble in that space. One of two things could happen here, I think... this will be enough of a political black eye that MS will give in and suggest allowances for other OSes or there will be pressure coming back from the server side toward desktops that can effect change. In any event, this will be interesting to watch.

Based on the dealings I have had with IBM over there years (several companies, different projects), IBM needs to spend their time figuring out how to make their own products work rather than trying to figure out user behavioral patterns. The fact that I've never seen a single IBM project completed at an employer of mine in the 20 years I've been in IT tells me that instead of searching their email, folks might actually need to use it as a "To-Do" instead. http://43folders.com/ http://inbozero.com/

No, I launch iTerm and go into full-screen mode and never leave. You don't *have* to use the GUI for anything you don't want to.

> U.S. joined that one 1974 Also the year WIPO became a United Nations entity. Probably the reason why.

Actually, since the inception of the Berne convention, Copyright was modified that copyright laws from country to country would be observed across political and national lines. Prior to Berne, there were no guidelines, and individual countries' copyright laws held, but for their own country. Most of these things are managed through the World Intellectual Property Organization and its Copyright Treaty signed by a great number of nations. So, diatribe aside, it isn't just the U.S.

No Agenda Show actually. They exposed (as the first scanners were going in) that the former chief of Homeland Security (Chertoff) is the one responsible for bringing them in. Nevermind his security consulting group has a client that manufactures the machines. No Agenda has been consistently months ahead of both the news and public reaction on a number of similar issues. http://noagendashow.com/

What's a "modem"? ;)

try to find a union for IT in the U.S. And then try and waggle that around as a weapon in an at-will state, and see what that gets you...

>> we banned the admins from touching the critical environments unless the software engineers who had designed said environments okayed it Interesting quote here. In the UNIX world (I'm assuming you're talking a Win environment) the security structure is exactly the opposite. You grant permissions just enough for development to do their job, granting sudo level access where necessary, holding it back where appropriate. Often times you'll find that the very most brilliant of software developers are quite uninitiate in the ways of the operating system (unless they're a systems programmer, at which point this comment does not apply). They know an IDE, perhaps some basic shell to get their job done, and maybe even a very small portion of the software serving stack they're dealing with (in a web services world, this tends to be the case). In my 20 years, I've only found 3 or 4 developers that could be trusted with shell to their own serving platform. Sad, but true. That's why I find your comment so interesting. I have never seen it where the developers (usually clueless) dictated system access policies to admins. Admins are admins for a reason. :)