[geeks] KVM revisited

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:27:22 -0400 (EDT)
adh at an.bradford.ma.us (Sandwich Maker) wrote:

> " From: Phil Stracchino <phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net>
> " 
> " John Francini wrote:
> " > Sounds like massively stupid behavior on the part of the device  
> " > makers.  You'd think they'd WANT their devices to work well when  
> " > there was a KVM between them and the computer!
> " > 
> " > Short sighted lawyerly stupidity at its finest.
> " 
> " No-one ever claimed lawyers were smart.  They just have insanely
> " complicated minds that are incapable of thinking about anything in a
> " simple, straightforward, logical way.
> 
> actually, it is simple, straightforward, and logical, in a rather
> paraniod sort of fashion: protect at all costs even when cooperation
> would be better, because once you give an inch you set a precedent and
> before you know it you'll be lying naked in the gutter!
> 
> i'm with lionel - it's the hallucination of intellectual property
> that's pushing this.  a kvm reporting the ids of attached devices is
> not the same as a printer masquerading as another device.

Am I the only one who can imagine some idiot applying this to networking?

Essentially, a KVM is almost like a network switch.

I can just see it now: Cisco sues 3Com for reporting the packets of attached
packet senders because it reveals proprietary behavior of Cisco routers.

That's no more bizarre an idea than trying to block a KVM from transmitting
video and USB data.



-- 
shannon / There is a limit to how stupid people really are, just as there's
-------'  a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the Universe.  There's a lot, 
but there's a limit.  -- Dave C. Barber on a.f.c.