> That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called Samba, > with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they should be > forced to run Mac OS X to do this. >
I think that Chan was giving an example. > People should have the choice to do what they want, even if you disagree > with it. Advocating for licenses to run a server is preposterous, and goes > completely against the Ubuntu philosophy in general [1], which is not > limited to just Ubuntu Desktop. So I suppose that lawyers should not be licensed? Doctors? Real estate agents? Everyone should have a choice to do whatever they want, complete anarchy? > Who are you to control what a mom 'n pop > small business does or does not do? An unwitting customer who may have an account with them. Or might receive spam from their compromised box. > Should they be forced to hire a full > time IT staff to run oldtownrootbeer.com because you don't think they should > have access to a powerful yet easy to use system, because they might do bad > things? > Yes, they should have a competent IT professional on call. Not because they might do bad things, but because they may do irresponsible things. > In all of this you have also forgotten that Ubuntu is used worldwide, > including places without much IT infrastructure, let alone IT training in > order to be an uber sysadmin. > What has this strawman have to do with the argument that servers should be run by competent IT professionals? -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
