[CS-FSLUG] Re: Christiansource Digest, Vol 12, Issue 45

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 09:02:58PM -0500, Don Parris wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:03:27 -0500, Aaron Lehmann
> <lehmanap at lehmanap.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 04:52:20PM -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:
> > > On Sun February 27 2005 4:38 pm, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 04:14:01PM -0500, Bradly J. McConnell wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >Bottom line: Looks like I'm STUCK (literally and figureatively)
> > > > > >with XP.   <p'tooey!>
> > > > >
> > > > > NEVER!!!!
> > > >
> > > > This may be heresy, but what does one need Linux FOR on a laptop?  It's
> > >
> > > Security for one, or at least most people do!
> > 
> > Security?  Don't open HTML mail.  Disable the insecure MS services.
> > Install Zone-alarm and Norton.  I suppose that maybe that's more hassle
> > than installing linux for some people.  Myself, I find installing Linux
> > to be a huge chore, especially when wireless networking is going to be
> > involved.  That's why I set it up in such a way that I can get full use
> > from my server through a putty, and then don't worry about what OS I'm
> > using on laptops and terminals.
> > 
> You must be using Debian, if you're going through that much hassle. ;)
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > > not as though you're planning on using it as a server, since you're
> > > > taking it with you wherever you go.  It's not as though you're having
> > > > multiple people use it at the same time (since you can't even find
> > > > internet connection, currently).  A frreind of mine has a laptop which
> > > > is running windows 98, and the machine is quite solid.  It's well up to
> > > > the task of opening up putty, and connecting elsewhere, or doing
> > > > documents.  It even plays starcraft (the only game worth playing, most
> > > > times).  What I'm getting at I guess is, I don't see the purpose of
> > > > hassling with Linux for a laptop.
> > >
> > > There's also principle. MANY of us won't use M$ nor buy it for a number of
> > > moral reasons.
> > 
> > Not much to say to that.
> > 
> 
> This was going to be my point as well.  I have to use M$ @ work
> because they won't dual-boot the box for me.  I suspect that trying to
> do that myself would land me in the unemployment line.  But any
> machine I have control over runs a pure FOSS platform.  Fred is not
> anti-proprietary as I am, just anti-M$.

I understand that many are anti-proprietary.  However, I'm a developer.
I'll likely be earning bread and butter by writing proprietary software,
and this doesn't bother me.  As a developer of software, I see no moral
problem with closing my own code, or even with giving rights to an
employer.  I would prefer my code remain mine, but that's a preference,
not a moral stance.

Aaron Lehmann