Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It was about time (Score 2) 207

It's reasonable to make "on" the default. First, anyone who installs Linux for the first time will not know what to choose and will probably rather go with the default than change something that might break something. And these are the people that, if I was the developer, I want to know the most about. Because first impressions and all that. If I notice that people install my system for the first time and I never hear from them again while there are others that continue using it, I want to know what caused the latter to stay and decide that the system is good. I want to know what modules they use and thus improve my default for those that do not know what modules will likely be interesting or useful to them.

Anyone who knows enough about Linux can easily identify that option and disable it if they so please, or they can even rewrite the installer for an automated installation without this being checked.

Comment Re:Opt in! (Score 3, Insightful) 207

As long as it's prominently featured in the installation process and not hidden in some user config without a sensible user interface and given some cryptic name, it isn't that big a difference. Anyone who values his privacy will uncheck that box, and anyone who doesn't doesn't care either way anyway.

Comment Re:Being a russian company. (Score 1) 97

Funny enough you're even right, most of the Russian internet companies mostly serve Russia. It's actually pretty interesting how there is nearly for every US company a Russian counterpart. Google - Yandex. GMX - Kickstarter - Planeta. Bet you never heard about them.

Which is a shame, they're quite useful. But I don't see anyone banning the use of or Yandex, which would actually make more sense than banning K if you ask me...

Comment Re:Rights (Score 1) 97

The US government as a company belongs to you. Well, not totally, but at least you're kinda like a shareholder. And as such, you're entitled to them using the funds you provide them with well. Them simply declaring that they will only buy from this provider or never buy from that provider requires oversight, or it becomes a cesspool of bribery and corruption.

There has to be oversight because, well, would you, as a shareholder, want your CEO to buy his supplies from a company that just happens to be owned by his spouse, no matter whether there are better offers? Or would you want your CEO to avoid buying a best offer because he doesn't like the vendor for some personal reason?

Don't get me wrong, if there is a good reason not to buy there, I'm glad they don't. And it's sad that the vendor has to second guess their actual motivation instead of you, the owner of the company, doing it.

That's actually your job. Selecting one of the two offered applicants for some management position every other year isn't enough!

Comment Re:Being a russian company. (Score 1) 97

What I wonder is why the selective treatment of one single company. If you think Russia is spying on you, block everything coming from there. It's not like Kaspersky is the only Russian security company (far from it) or the only Russian IT company (even further) or even that there isn't a LOT of OSS coming from that general area.

Take a look down Github. Sometimes it feels like every other library for compression or security has a Russian name next to it.

What's so special about Kaspersky?

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel