MandrakeSoft's Status Update

joestar writes "MandrakeSoft today posted an update letter from its CEO about the company's health. Among other things, it's interesting to learn that the company seems to be on the good track to go out of the "chapter-11 protection" before the end of the year, that it's taking part to several publicly-funded research projects, and that Mandrake 9.1 is having a good success. They also thank for the warm support they received from the community. Worth a read for all Mandrake fans, like myself. Viva la Mandrake!"

Comments

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

*Loud screeching siren and flashing lights*

GENTOO! You said today's secret word!

Good job, fuckwit. Soon all we'll see is the inane fanboy ejaculations from the Gentoo crowd.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Xtifr]

No, no, Gentoo is what you're supposed to shout whenever Debian is being discussed. The classic Mandrake troll is: it's just a copy of redhat. Get it right! :)

Now me, I'm still pissed off at whatzizname (head of Mandrakesoft) for his insulting comments about grandmothers. But to be fair, he may not be familiar with the high quality grandmothers we have here in California. I mean, what do you have to be to be a grandmother? 36? Do you know how many totally hot 36-year-olds there are in California? Speaking as someone who happens to have a mad crush on a woman who happens to be a grandmother, I'm glad Knoppix exists so I don't feel obligated to recommend the product of someone who makes such sexist, ageist remarks. :p ;)

(Yes, if Knoppix didn't exist, I would feel obligated to recommend Mandrake to my friends, even though I don't use it myself. And it's still a nice system, even if whatzizname is a complete jerk.)

Those terrorists

[Amomynos Coward]

So Mandrake is French! That does it, Linux really is for terrorists! I have to call Dubya...anyone has the coordinates of Mandrake headquarters?

Re:oh sure make excuses.

[Xerithane]

Just like P2P users pay via the ads in those programs?

Except your logic is astoundingly flawed. Slashdot owns the content on their page, or attributes it otherwise. Other websites own their content.

No thats sharing content thats under copyright, stealing content is hacking into the site, copying it and then deleting the data from their harddrive.

Let's follow some logic here:
Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Property:
1. Something owned; a possession.
2. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4. Possessions considered as a group.

What you do with it is irrelevant, if you delete it or not the person who posted it still stole it.

Get your facts straight, if you are an English major you should at least know the difference between copyright infringement and stealing.

Oops, proved wrong again. I'm surprised you have any dignity left.

From Marriam Webster Online

[HanzoSan]

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

This means to TAKE. That means if I copy all the files on your computer then I delete your files I have "took" your files.

Copying is not "Taking" away.

Re:From Marriam Webster Online

[Xerithane]

This means to TAKE. That means if I copy all the files on your computer then I delete your files I have "took" your files.

See, when you look at a definition that was created before intangible property than yeah, you could possibly be right. The references I provided prove that under common linguistical terms, in the English language, that using content copyrighted by another party outside of the provisions of copyright is stealing. IP Theft is the unauthorized taking of anothers trade secrets and intangible property, for example.

But we're not in a digital era. Perhaps you would be better off living in the medieval times. I'm sure the rest of the Slashdot community would miss your idiocy though.

HOLD THE SPAMMER'S CLIENT RESPONSIBLE.

[gurps_npc]

I think it is time to simply declare that the spamer's clients are responsible for anything the spammers do. That way when a web site pays a spammer to advertise for them, we do not have to track down the spammers, we just have to click on the link.

And better yet, make it legal to hack any web site that pays for spammers, as long as the only thing you do is put up a black screen that says in gold "This site sent me spam!" I am going to propose this as a poll.

No ones taking your "intangible" property.

[HanzoSan]

First of all, its debateable right now if intangible property is a right, we havent really figured that out yet, the DMCA was not created in a democractic way.

Second, ok lets say intangible property is a right, no ones taking your intangible property when they copy it. If you own a tangible car and I take my major wand and copy that car, suddenly we both have a car. I havent taken your car, but I have your car.

This is how I can say its not stealing to simply make a unique copy of something.

Now if I made a copy and then sold it, then you can say I stole your profits, this is morally wrongn and we both agree.

If I copy however for myself and I dont sell it, I'm not taking money from you, I'm not really taking or removing anything from you, I'm simply refusing to give you control over the idea of "car".

I think it should be balanced, the creator of the car should have the exclusive right to profit from the "car", and no ones going to debate this.

However when we get to a point where our technology allows us to pull out a magic wand and create a clone or copy of the car, the person who created the car will need to keep creating new and better cars to compete with the market forces.

"Theft is the unauthorized taking of anothers trade secrets and intangible property, for example."

Once again copying is not taking, its copying. When you take, you remove something from that person causing them harm. If I take your trade secret I remove your ability to profit using that trade secret. If I copy your software and then sell it for cheaper I remove your ability to profit.

However if I simply copy your software the act of copying it is not illegal because it causes no har m to you while it benefits me. The moral arguement only works when you can measure the harm caused by an action, when an action causes no harm and benefits everyone its very difficult to convince people that its morally wrong.

Its certainly not theft, even if you want it to be, it is copyright infringement only because in the current system the owners demand absolute control over distribution and use. However the users demand absolute control over distribution and use now because the users want the right to own what they pay for.

So the debate is, who controls what, and how much. People who do not respect Copyright simply want the right to distribute the software, given the current technology we have with the internet, etc etc, its against progress to "restrict" distribution, and try to control the market.

Just like trying to put taxes all over trade doesnt work, you cannot have absolute control over a product in a world where anyone and everyone can copy it, face it, information is like water or sunlight, trying to own the sun or water, its something you'll never be able to get away with in the real world.

So if you cannot get away with it in the real world why should you get away with it in the online world?

Yes people sell water, but water generally is free, anyone can get their own water. If you want clean water, or higher quality water you buy bottled water.

Information is like water, instead of trying to control the flow of it, we should learn to profit from it in a way which allows it to flow freely.