Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
The Internet

Submission + - It's an extra-large world after all

netbuzz writes: "Unwelcome jockstrap ads on a Disney-related Web site might seem funny ... unless you're Al Lutz and run, an independent online outlet for news, gossip, opinion and visitor tips regarding all things Disney. Lutz doesn't want to sell jockstraps but says he isn't getting the help he needs from Amazon to avoid doing so. 3"

Submission + - Need response for IT's rejection to opensource

badcowboy writes: I have been trying to get a LAMP server onto our corporate network. The problem I have been running into is our corporate IT manager has some issues with open source. Here is his response to my request:

"I too like open source software, but not in the enterprise. This would require implementing GPL clients and servers within our organization who's authors have no responsibility or accountability for any security issues that were opened up as a result.

Open source is fine for some implementations. I may take a look at this in my spare time to get a better idea of what it's capabilities and pitfalls are, but in all likelihood this isn't something we're going to implement here for the reasons mentioned above anytime soon.

What is the best way to respond?

Comment Re:F*** Microsoft. (Score 1) 125

The arguement for open source everything is a waste of time. Not EVERYTHING should be open source. Microsoft shouldn't have to release thier source code to any product. However, when they are going out and suing companies for using linux in thier products as a result of software patents that are vauge to say the least, they should have to prove that there is in fact some sort of infringement. If I code a program that does task A, and Microsoft has a program that does task A, Microsoft should have to at least show thier hand (at least to a judge) to prove that I actually infringed on thier intellectual property. The problem with the way software patents are bieng approached is this. If thier program uses Algorithm A to do the task and a competitor uses Algorithm B, Microsoft can still wave this magic piece of paper around that says, Algorithm for doing task A. No matter if a companies code looks nothing like thiers and uses a completley diffrent method, Microsoft can still force me to pay them royalties, or worse, force thier competitors out of business by preventing innovation. In the end, it's the end user that will suffer. No matter if a great new way of doing something is created, M$ just has to send a lawyer to make sure that we, the users, never get it. So is keeping thier source code hidden from even the courts in the best interest of M$? Clearly yes. Will it prevent competition and innovation in software? I say yes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer