I am out of the loop with the *BSD for now. Last time I attemped Live USB Beastie was Freesbie. You may have it easier going with a distro focused on running from USB.
The info was deleted. The info was the results from #opNov5 ("Remember, remember the 5th of November"). Cracktivists posted the results of their ops and observations on what was done wrong. What was in that document were very damaging. I did not save that file.I have never seen anything like that in any books that I have read. Could you bring up some other sources? I would find that rather odd seeing that both hybrid/micro and exokernel isolate suspicious processes and files from what is known as the main server (ring 0, IPC, scheduler) and can restore failed programs without the users intervention through the use of a reincarnation server (BSODs drastically reduced).
The common misconception is that GPL'd and other open licensed code are unsalable. It is the code that has to be freely available, not the cost. You decide if you want to buy it or not, but the source code has to travel with it (in the case of GPL). Whomever has that code is free to give it to someone else. Not the game, the code. Sharing binaries without permission of the author is illegal, sharing source is covered. Besides, you haven't seen the whole interwebs as yet. Look up MODDB, Desura/Desurium and similar.But, back to the main topic, or what I think is implied by the main topic -can gaming Open Source gaming be a viable option for developers? The answer, I think, is an emphatic NO. For a platform to be successful, it needs to have an exclusive. The PS2 shot ahead of the pack with MGS2, GTA3 and Devil May Cry. Its predecessor had MGS, FF7 and a whole bunch of Maddens. Even though the PS2 was regarded as a pain to develop for (initially Sony had to fly out engineers to help third party devs), it was still the most successful console ever til the Nintendo Wii came out. That was because third parties had a guaranteed Return On Investment, so that if they sent two years developing a game engine with 250,000 lines of code, a game with another 250,000 lines of code with 10 programmers, 20 artists and a 10 million dollar budget, they can make back enough money to feed their families and pay their bills. How are they going to do that on a platform whose users are ideologically opposed to peopkle owning the rights to their own source code? Not unless they develop on a much more popular platform first.
As you said above, you get what you pay for. Until then, the phrase 'Open Source Game Industry' will continue to be an oxymoron.
If the "Commercial Gaming Industry" has their way, you would change your mind about what is *moron-ic. That industry would not be much different from the movie industry: endless regurgitation and hyped suctivity.