Reaper actually *officialy* supports WINE. From http://www.reaper.fm/download.php : "Windows (32-bit): Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista/7 or WINE (limited support for W98/ME)."

"1) Giorgio Maone himself has pointed out repeatedly, including at the thread in question, that anyone can disable his pages' ads with NoScript just by blocking the Google-Syndication scripts. NoScript itself cannot be circumvented in this blocking, even by NoScript. :)"

Except the NoScript site serves ads from other sources than just Google. For example, I count 3 "pop-up on hover" adds from DoClix, Inc. on the "GetIt" page alone. Please note the references to "s3.buysellads.com" as well as a "sponsored links" sections that is not from Google in addition to the doclix.com ads. Not that either side of this point is actually relevant to how inappropriate the action was.

"2) For those who think the updates are a revenue-(ad-viewing)-generator, aside from the fact that the NS FAQ includes simple instructions for turning off the home-page redirect for each update (try reading the FAQ before criticizing)"

Except - as has been pointed out many times - the user has to set this up themselves in about:config, rather than a simple checkbox from the NoScript GUI. Not that either side of this point is actually relevant to how inappropriate the action was.

The fact of the matter is that Giorgio crossed a line, violating user trust and behaved in a manner exactly like malware. Rationalizing the action by saying there was an "an aggressive EasyList campaign against sites sponsoring NoScript development" or that it was an "attack" on the NoScript site, indicates a problem of acceptance of responsibility and does not help - it only compounds the mistake. Giorgio needs to apologize, promise not to do anything like this again in the future and try to regain user trust.

Excuse me? I'm not *evangelizing* jack shit. I said *why* I think something - clearly identified both my source and (in)experience with the topic - and thanked people that provided comments.

People can do that, you know? State what they think and then listen to what other people have to say - it's how intelligent people refine their opinions.

The dude from MS said a full day before your personal attack that the article didn't hold up - that was good enough for me, because it's not something I care enough about to research any further. Just like my newly refined opinion of you.

Thanks for the response. I guess I'm slow because I can't wrap my head around the assertion that there is "absolutely ZERO impact on people who don't use DRM'd media".

Admittedly, I don't use Vista - and I'm basing my opinion on this article I read a long time ago - but it seems to be both by "common-sense" and "real figuring" (like in the article), all the DRM stuff that was added in Vista does have some impact. Even on those who wouldn't be using DRM'ed files.

This doesn't make sense. If Vista isn't at least checking a file for the presence of DRM, then it can't possibly be doing anything DRM-related at all.

So, it seems obvious that Vista must have some DRM-specific code running for non-DRM files, even if it is only as quick as "check and exit"

I'm not a wikipedian, so I'm not up on the nuances of wikipedia-speak. After reading the "non-notable" link you gave, I agree with the delete votes, and disagree with the notability guidelines -- the user "Khanaris" lays out an argument on that deletion page that is fairly close to my own thoughts.

In any case, as you say, that's the nice thing about the Internet. (And now I know more about both Warhammer and Wikipedia details that I ever cared to.)

It's more than just "sources and nothing else."

There's a whole list of "Reasons for Deletion"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, at least one of which (notability) is at best controversial in its application.

A lot of the time, this flexibility in deletion justification is a good thing and it keeps a lot of spam/kooks/PR garbage off Wikipedia. However, sometimes it is mis-wielded as a tool to remove or prevent articles for whatever reason makes sense to some deletion-obsessed editor. (In fact, it looks to me like the exact article you link to about "Blood Angels" was deleted not because of "sources", but for being "cruft" or "non-noteable".)

"Linux users" are more certainly *not* protected by this covenant.

*At best*, those who use a Moonlight "obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient" are covered.

Note that "Intermediate Receipient" is specifically "so long as it is not bundled with a Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software"

There's so much wrong with the Novell/Microsoft relationship it's hardly adequate to stop here, but keep this sort of thing in mind whenever the Novell/Microsoft apologists chirp up.