Community vs. Corporate Linux, The Coming Divide 201
tobyj writes "MadPenguin.org discusses the great divide that will separate corporate Linux (companies that are working with Microsoft) and community Linux (companies that haven't yet partnered with Microsoft) and their impact on Linux as a whole. Matt Hartley writes, "For Linux enthusiasts, the rules are simple and clear to interpret. But for Microsoft and its Linux partners, we will see plenty of them pointing to self-created loopholes, which will result in fierce debate, and perhaps even worse, blatant defiance.
As a collective community, we'd like to think that this whole issue will just blow over, but with the massive migration of so many Windows users and companies that wish to capitalize on this migration, defiance of the GPL will happen and more so than ever before."
New Logo Needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the link (Score:5, Funny)
Erm... free?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Click here to get the latest prices on Linux distributions!
Erm... free?
You can charge money to distribute free software. I am allowed to sell you a copy of the latest Unbuntu CD for a million dollars if I want. Remember that free refers to liberty, not price.
This comes right from the GNU website [gnu.org]: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Re: (Score:2)
Your sense of humor called, he's asking to come back
Ermmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ermmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This way anyone who might be sitting on the fence can clearly understand the consequences: If you think Microsoft is a stinky abusive monopolist but you are successful at offering large-scale 24x7 support to large customers, you're *community* Linux, not corporate, and your customers will leave you! Likewise, if you haven't upgrade to Shared Source Linux.NET, you will -- just as soon as Microsoft sends out the lawyers.
Speculation and FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like somebody is desecrating the Holy Bible, (e
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've posted about this on other threads, but having a distro of Linux that has certifications like Common Criteria, FIPS, and others is always a plus. This allows companies to show that they are doing due diligence and satisfy the legal eagles.
I do worry about "Tivo-ization" thoug
"community Linux"?! (Score:5, Insightful)
What?!
Rather think "When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won.", as said by Linus Torvalds
-
Think Freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather think "When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won.", as said by Linus Torvalds
It's not that easy.
When M$ becomes a free software company, we will all win. If M$ becomes a free software owner, we will all lose. The whole point of free software is to avoid software owners - people who make you pay for the privilege of using and improving their software but who will restrict those uses and improvements so that you never get what you want.
Free software isn't always great. (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the things championed here on Slashdot more than anything else? DRM and Free Software.
So why is it that I couldn't find a free solution to ripping and re-encoding DVDs? I must have tried 5 or 6 different applications with no luck - the audio and video were always out of sync. Even tried the much-ballyhooed Auto Gordian Knot with the same result. Reading the support forums is a joke. "Oh, you need to go pull it up in AutoDub or VirtualDub and adjust the sync rate". Oh, go download this and that codec to make it work.
It seems like you needed 5 or 6 independent "free" pieces of the pie to make it go, and none of them did the trick.
What did I finally do? I went and spent $80 over at Slysoft for a single software package that just worked.
Re:Free software isn't always great. (Score:4, Informative)
K9copy? On Debian I found K9copy very easy to install, very easy to use, and almost flawless at ripping and encoding. I have yet to find a mis-sync in my backed up DVDs. The hardest part is you have to add the contrib and non-free repos into Debian so it'll grab DeCSS. That's not very hard
I have seen problems on many distros in having to build things together, and I agree, DVD playback and encoding has been painful until recently. K9Copy + [recent well supported distro] seems to be the quickest fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Wellcome to Free Software. Our developers reuse code, that is why they can beat Microsoft and you can still get their code for free most of the times.
If you were using a system with a modern approach to software instalation, that wouldn't be a problem, but you seem to be using Windows... Well, there is a price you pay for that. After things are installed, they often integrate quite well.
More like (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's face it, what's holding free software back isn't some evil conspiracy by a shadowy group of corporations working behind the scenes to subvert the moral goodness of the software ecosystem. It's the apparent inability of free software developers to make their code attractive at any level other than price.
In my opinion, the essential examples of this are gimp and Ubuntu.
Why is Ubuntu popular? Not because it's Windows-y, but because it installs painlessly (without the requiring obscure command-line incantaions that a lot if distros do). You pop in the CD and answer about five questions and you wind up with a box that has all the "standard" software (a browser and some basic tools) that's on the network and ready to go. The interface is clean, it generally works in expected ways (keyboard shortcuts do what you expect, it has a "trash can", etc)
The gimp, on the other hand, is a messy pile of usability errors looking for a home. Obscure names for common tools are only the start--the odd behavior of the separate application windows is also egregious.
Free software will only become a real competitor to close software when people espousing it come to the realization the price is not the only factor.
Sorry for the rant
Freedom Again. (Score:2)
So why is it that I couldn't find a free solution to ripping and re-encoding DVDs?
Because DVD ripping software is not free in the US. The DMCA makes it a crime to share that software, even to tell people where the parts are. To use that kind of software, you have to import the pieces through a non-US distribution. Because most of the English world slavishly tracks US law, the import is hard to find in English as well. It can be done but it would be much easier if the US were a free country with laws
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna happen. Remember when RedHat discontinued their desktop OS (alienating formerly-loyal customers) and made their distribution non-free? Well, folks have released White Box Linux and CentOS, based on the Redhat code. RedHat had the nerve to threaten suit against those groups since they credited RedHat as providing the source for the project (Funny, doesn't the GPL require crediting the or
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you ignoring recent comments that Shuttleworth made saying he wouldn't rule out working with MS? He might not play patent ball, but don't be shocked if some other deal comes up eventually. http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/06/mark_shu ttlewor.html [wired.com]
Re:Think Freedom. (Score:5, Informative)
I can't recall if I've seen this around but: if nobody "owns" software, is it subject to tragedy of the commons?
There are probably arguments either way, but because software isn't a scarce commodity I don't know how that old idea applies.
Effective competition against software license models can only happen with the understanding of the real economic bottleneck-- software developers and engineers.
I would suspect that as long as there are enough people willing and able to create new software and / or modify what's out there the issues would be minimized. The big problem I see with no "owners" of software is that ensuring you had "the real deal" would be difficult, because there's nobody to go after for "shoddy" software. Essentially, without an owner there is no responsibility. This could be detrimental, because it would mean that every organization that wants to use software would then have to hire competent software folks to evaluate and analyze the software, or make it all proprietary in the first place.
PostgreSQL has taken a similar approach. As has LedgerSMB, but in both these cases, there is a core committee who retains ownership of the trademarks for QA purposes.
Sure the local crowd here on /. is capable of evaluating most small projects, but in an environment that really relies on software as a tool, you can't "guess" that it will do what you want, and having the luxury (yes it's a luxury) of a software "owner" on which to place responsibility is probably a good thing.
"The software" is a pretty vague term in the open source world. As is "ownership."
Having software so "open" that responsibility cannot be assigned is actually a bad thing.
Now, the balance between those two concepts - responsibility and freedom - is a tricky one to be sure. At the very least, I agree that software should be "open" in the sense that you should be able to change what you have locally to do whatever you want; responsibility only comes in when you distribute those changes to others (or the use of modified bits can affect others).
1) Core team (sometimes called a Steering Committee or Project Management Team), most of which have commit rights, and all are involved in managing the project.
2) Committers who have earned the right to commit based on past performance. Their rights are granted and managed by the core team.
3) Other community members including both users and developers. Any contributions from them have to go through committers.
The key to making this work is the commitment to community and transparency of process. Sure, just anyone can't go commit to svn-- only those who have proven themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if nobody "owns" software, is it subject to tragedy of the commons? There are probably arguments either way, but because software isn't a scarce commodity I don't know how that old idea applies.
Wow! This must be a first on slashdot. Usually the poster expresses an opinion without sufficient facts. But P has all the facts and is unwilling to commit to an opinion.
So I'll do it for him: by definition, the tragedy of the commons is caused by one party using a scarce resource. If there is no scarcity, there is no tragedy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I was stretching the use of the term. Basically, (and the other poster above didn't comment on this one, though someone further down in the main thread did) I was going along the lines of "when nobody owns a common resource, it tends to get abused." I suppose it was too much of a stretch, without being explicit, to say "if there is no central 'owner' of software, software loses accountability." Which is basically the tragedy of the commons - without vested direct interest there is abuse. (I admit, qui
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't recall if I've seen this around but: if nobody "owns" software, is it subject to tragedy of the commons?
There are probably arguments either way, but because software isn't a scarce commodity I don't know how that old idea applies.
I would suspect that as long as there are enough people willing and able to create new software and / or modify what's out there the issues would be minimized. The big problem I see with no "owners" of software is that ensuring you had "the real deal" would be difficult, because there's nobody to go after for "shoddy" software. Essentially, without an owner there is no responsibility. This could be detrimental, because it would mean that every organization that wants to use software would then have to hire competent software folks to evaluate and analyze the software, or make it all proprietary in the first place.
The whole point to the "tragedy of the commons" scenario is unrestricted access to a finite resource. Since software isn't naturally scarce (although some business strategies involve artificial scarcity), it doesn't apply.
Proprietary software does not guarantee quality. It doesn't matter if someone "owns" a given software package - there's only so much you can do if a company is unable to deliver. If you check your software license you'll probably find you don't even have any legal recourse (or at least
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One option (that I do) is to charge customers for access to the actual scarcity-- my time! Want x feature? Pay me $y.
The tragedy of commons does apply to free software however in a limited way. People like to make feature requests, and not everyone wants to pay to make those things happen. If we trea
Re: (Score:2)
The scarce resource is developer and engineering manpower, not the software itself. License-models use the licenses as a way of distributing access to that scarcity. However it is not the only possibility.
One option (that I do) is to charge customers for access to the actual scarcity-- my time! Want x feature? Pay me $y.
You're really stretching the concept. It's possible someone has put themselves in to this kind of scenario. But I would imagine its relatively rare. Sure - time and manpower is finite but it is not available on an unrestricted basis. But few people allow themselves to be directed by a nameless mass of others. You, yourself, included it would seem.
Re: (Score:2)
The more you use, the bigger your network effect.
I can see conflict as the number of interested developers grows. You might "over develop" a lightweight simple tool into something bloated.
should the english language have an owner? (Score:3, Interesting)
Human languages are the same sort of beast that large open source software systems (like linux) are, only more so. To wit: a system of such complexity and scope solving a set of problems so pervasive and enormous that the only hope for inventing it in the first place, and for maintaining it, is for everyone to spend a lot of time practicing it and tinkering with it and for insights to be passed around freely. Th
Re: (Score:2)
And this means to imply what? That business who sell support are figments of my imagination?
If you work at a place that needs someone to be responsible for the code, please buy support from us, companies who do sell it. We're eager to help you.
Other than that, you're just spawning Microsoft parrot-talk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you have no recourse anyway because the copyright owner (in the case of GPL'd software) has provided no such assurances; from the GPL -
Re: (Score:2)
Business puts all their eggs in the Microsoft basket today - and that is no different than doing so with OSS for all intents and purposes.
Re:Think Freedom. (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not aware of anyone even trying to sue Microsoft. Hmmm... sue and probably lose, or drop the suit and get free stuff?
Note that this applied to threats both over quality of software and quality of support.
Re: (Score:2)
First, "going after someone for shoddy software" doesn't necessarily mean "suing them." One case in point: LedgerSMB forked from a shoddy program. Our codebase is under total rewrite because the code is so bad as to be impossible to maintain, and the security in the original program was non-existant (using logins as session keys?!? Using timestamps for session validation-- validation meaning "this timestamp corresponds to a time in the last hour?????").
In this case "going aft
Re:"community Linux"?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, as we all know, RedHat and IBM are not corporations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPL will keep us free (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see that ending any time soon.
Two points (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We are still on the brink and we'll never be totally secure in having free software.
The only thing keeping MS from really examining under the table deals with hardware manufacturers is the EU and to a lesser extent Linux's total ineptitude on the desktop.
Re:GPL will keep us free (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, one of the most restrictive OS Licenses will keep us 'free'.
Yes, if by "restrictive" you mean "does not grant the freedom to deny other people the same freedom". Which is, you know, how most sensible definitions of freedom work out. Or do you think slavery should be legalized in the name of "freedom"?
Anti-GPL trolls are funny.
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to make a truly FOSS-based server product, I would either stick to open standards for access or I would release the client libraries under a suitably free license (LGPL or BSD). Some companies, such as MySQL AB, however, like to twist this around to sell *proprietary* software licenses to those who don't run 100% FOSS software. And MySQL AB at various times in the past has had odd ideas abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, because I do most of my work with the GPL, I will have to say that it does have problems and I hope that over time those problems are corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
> that they are required to then go purchase a license from MySQL AB in order to *use* the software?
They don't need to buy a license to use it. The license you can buy only gives you a permission to use MySQL with non-free software. If you are going to use only free software, then you don't need to buy the license. To again GPL provides freedom. Don't mix GPL with the non-GPL license MySQL is selli
Re: (Score:2)
Of course arguments over open-source licenses tend to be silly. It comes with the territory. I'm not a fanatic for any one license myself, I just get annoyed by anti-GPL trolls. I'm generally sympathetic to the goals of the GPL but it isn't always the best choice--for instance, putting libraries and reference implementations under the GPL seems annoying and stupid, and dual licensing schemes for libraries (i.e., either paid license for non-GPL use or full GPL) leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does it stop you doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What can you not do under the GPL?
1) CHoosing your own license for your own code.
2) linking to OpenSSH or other old-style BSD-licensed projects, or works like PHP or SugarCRM which are licensed under other incompatible FOSS licenses.*
3) Gain greater legal clarity by adding a jursdiction clause.
* IANAL. Limitations according to the FSF. However, definitions such as "derivative work" and "work as a whole" may vary according to jurisdiction, but you may have no control over where a case is actually tried. T
Re:GPL will keep us free (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious as to what license scheme you believe will guard freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
The most restrictive open source license. Is there one more restrictive? Please, enlighten us. I can't think of one.
Re: (Score:2)
I consider the Afferro Public License to be more restrictive. Thank goodness adding those terms to the GPL v3 didn't happen
THis being said, the GPL is still one of the most restrictive OS licenses. Whether or not those restrictions are right for your project depends on what
Re: (Score:2)
I count 60 [opensource.org] licenses. Qmail is NOT [qmail.org] OSI certified. Affero is not approved either, or at least I can't find a single reference claiming it to be. So out of the 60 OSI-certified licenses, GPL stands to be the worst, you agree with me?
I think I missed the part where you demonstrated that "least restrictive" equals "best". Could you back up and go over that again, please?
Re: (Score:2)
Note I caveated it: Yes, one of the most restrictive OS Licenses will keep us 'free'. /laugh.
The most restrictive open source license. Is there one more restrictive? Please, enlighten us. I can't think of one.
You probably meant OSS (Open Source Software) vs. OS which is usually a reference to Operating System. But hey... I see what you're saying now.
I have a sneaking suspicion this is leading to the standard BSD vs. GPL thread. So I'll cut to the chase. You may laugh at the GPL maintaining freedom - but don't try to kid us with the idea that a BSD license will do better. Having said that - I'm still curious as to what license you think will do better for "freedom" than the GPL.
Where's the beef? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
don't comment on the article .. (Score:2)
ws: Re:Where's the beef?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Massive migration? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow flaimbait summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the kind that realise that Microsoft has screwed so many business partners in the past (Spyglass, for an excellent example) that a partnership with them is not sound buisness.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Game Over (Score:5, Interesting)
"If they wont play nice, then we cont support their stuff"
good move. push Linux more into obscurity by not supporting modern technologies.
It kind of hints at something big missed last week though, when it comes to patents:
If Microsoft 0wnz Novell
and Novell 0wnz Unix
and SCO failed it's lawsuit against linux for the reason of "not owning Unix in the first place"
Could Novell now have an trump card when it comes to Linux?.....could it take the same patent lawsuit against Linux that SCO attempted, while using it's rightful ownership?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason this was a valid tactic for SCO was because the company was on the way out anyway - there was nothing to loose. The lawsuit was never going to win and they knew that, it was purely there to spread FUD about linux and make a tidy packet for a few individuals.
The circumstances just aren't there for 'normal' companies to do this.
Can't happen (Score:5, Informative)
The SCO lawsuit was not about patents, it was about contract violation and copyright infringement. Patents were never mentioned by SCO.
Novell now has legal standing with respect to Unix copyrights. However, they distribute an entire GNU/Linux distribution, much of which (including the Linux kernel) is under the GPL. Therefore, they can't even attack Linux for copyright infringement. So Novell has no "trump card" when it comes to Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Am I the only screaming, "That's what you get, that's what you friggin' get!"?
Re: (Score:2)
The SCO lawsuit was not about patents, it was about contract violation and copyright infringement. Patents were never mentioned by SCO.
Was it ever about copyright infringement? Sure - there was lots about it in the press. SCO really beat that drum in public forums where proof wasn't required. But they never produced any proof in court. Not just proof that was refuted... but anything proof at all. Theorizing that Novell now has a strong position gives a lot more credit to SCO's claims (read: FUD) than it warrants.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dont have time to reverse engineer hardware and write drivers. Bravo to those that do!
I don't have the expert
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The community has to grow up (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you point to any instance where Microsoft, or some other comparable company has been held liable for defects in their software? People keep bringing up this argument, but I can not ever recall anyone actually using this in practice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other proble
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Scenario 1: Machines with Commercial OS "A" get breached. IT department shows that the OS, database, and other security measures are commercial, by known brands. Corporate rep gets tarnished, but because the company did due diligence with a solid paper trail, there is a smaller attack profile by potential plaintiffs.
Scenario 2: Machines with a non-commercial OS "B" get breached. IT de
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with holding *any* software company liable after you agree to that EULA disclaiming all liability.
Ummmm, so where does Red Hat fit in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Errr, minor point, but Moses didn't draw the line in the sand; Bowie did. Moses ran.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't this already happened to some extent? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, like corporate Linux. The support is all there. With community distros, I can't tell you how many times my questions have gone unanswered or have been mocked. With corporate editions, I can actually call/email someone with and issue and get a response in a timely manner.
I understand the whole attitude about keeping Linux free; but alienation of community users by community users is a good way for community Linux to shoot itself in the foot.
Actually Redhat is back in the desktop market... (Score:2)
Hmm... Pretty similar to my article from March 13 (Score:2, Interesting)
"There is in fact a coming divide that will hit the Linux community like a freight train. The battle lines have already been drawn, and companies that support Linux, such as Canonical, will eventually find themselves fiercely pitted against companies like Linspire, who only a short time ago, entered into an agreement of cooperation."
http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=7988 [madpenguin.org]
From my article, "The Coming Linux Storm"
"The Linux community is heading for a clas
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop fighting these 'freedom stealing' windmills and start enjoying your freedoms. You do realize you lost your all your copyleft freedoms the moment you started writing stuff like this when you could have been writing cool software, testing some beta version of something or even installing Linux on the PC of you mother in law? It's useless to make such a fuss about what the rest
The problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they have to improve something to make money, then that would be their motivation.
I think the Linux community itself is divided, however. There are several companies trying to make money from Linux (Red Hat), and then there are other groups of people who are intent on making sure Linux remains open source and free for all...
I would think that either Linux needs to remain completely free and open source for ALL distributions, or Microsoft is going to start sticking its fingers into the pie, trying to figure out where the money drip is.
More out of the media beast babeling mouth..... (Score:4, Insightful)
This persistent nagging as to how this or that or the other are issues the linux community has to deal with or they will fall and linux will be no more....bla bla blaaaa..pff pff spit..
This sort of shit out of the mouth has been going on since Linus first announced his plans to create linux. Perhaps it was going on before that even with article on Stallman.
I'd really honestly sincerely like to see the stats as to how many of these stories and anal-analists have actually panned out. And that includes SCO and Microsoft shit babeling about Linux...
what's the score? absolute BS __________________________________________ vs. Panned Out _
(space alloted for answers)
Stupid Linux... (Score:2)
Why is Slashdot.. (Score:3, Insightful)
where exactly is the FUD .. (Score:2)
was: Re:Why is Slashdot..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"is he saying he wants FOSS to become, instead of a competitor, more like a kind of cheap subsidiary [groklaw.net] that innovates principally for Microsoft's benefit? Microsoft gets innovation and code and makes money from it. Maybe some patents you didn't notice, too. Linux vendors on the bridge make some money. You get nothing"
"Linspire has now signed a patent deal with Microsoft, which I'm sure does not surprise you. They've been fores
Missed story (Score:5, Insightful)
Anywhile, tagging the companies that work with MS as 'corporate' takes some serious spinning. I'm sure IBM, Sun, Oracle, Apple, etc would all chafe at being left out of the 'corporate' segment. But then, all 4 of them might qualify to be 'corporate' under these terms since most are in bed with MS already, to some degree.
Stupid People (Score:2)
M$ is black widow... No one get any benefit from them...
IBM, Stac, Sybase
Clever people learn other's mistakes, stupid people learn own mistakes...
Re: divide (Score:2)
The least desirable scenario is for Microsoft to benefit/profit from/soak up any of the good-vibes associated with Linux. And any kind of "partnership" with M$ -- whether corporate or community -- would do just that. The "corporate vs. community" headline is misleading. It is not and should not be a matter of fragmenting Linux developers or potential end-users according to corporate or community motives.
Being 'corporate' is not necessarily bad for Linux. Indeed, I think the only
main points .. (Score:2)
"Working Together As a Community to Leave Behind Microsoft Media Formats"
"Separating the Weak From the Strong"
"No matter how hard we try to down play it, the patent threats and deals that are being made because of them are hurting the community [madpenguin.org] - it's a simple fact. The real trick will be to see who sticks this out and who falls back to closed source alternatives, as we see Linux getting split with IP politics"
What has Microsoft got to do with it.. (Score:3)
Canonical has made Linux Desktop a reality and now companies like Novell are suffering because of it.How so? Maybe for the US but not the rest of the world.Mixing GPL 2 and 3 code is not much of a problem if the project is using the "or at your option any later version" clause as most projects are. If not then you're screwed but in reality I fail to see any real cases of this happening. Note its only code, you could have GPL 2 and 3 applications running no problem side by side.
This article is all over the place what is the main point of this article again? It went from distribution divides, to licensing issues, to patent problems. arrgh! stay on topic!
This thread is a straw man argument (Score:2, Funny)
This Divide is Nothing New (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
interesting dividing line (Score:2)
MS is late to Divide and Conquer (Score:2)
So, the community is divided on those that made a deal with Microsoft (I'll call those ones "Dead") and those without such deal (I'll call those "Other"). Well, big deal! We have yet another pair of labels to put on each other... And the "Dead" ones won't even stay long enough to make a big number.
Microsoft is trying to divide and conquer the community. The only problem is that we are already divided, and are strong that way. If that was a sucessfull strategy, Microsoft would jump directly to the "conquer"
Re: (Score:2)
(I'm blaming the new way of browsing the comment system........)
Re: (Score:2)
where exactly is the FUD .. (Score:2)
was: Re:Sounds Like FUD To Me
Re: (Score:2)