Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: XPiracy, Panel, Gentoo
The real requirements for Longhorn, at least at this juncture. Cryoknight writes "It seems that Longhorn will run on almost anything that's a P4 or better, judging by this article from C|Net News. You only need a 64mb graphics card to run the slickest version..."
(That's in contrast with earlier reports that the average Longhorn system would be hefty indeed; of course, listed minimums and recommendations are often worlds apart.)
How many bits could Mandrake chuck if Mandrake could chuck bits? Shipud writes "Speaking of AMD beating Intel, Mandrake have just released their v.10 for AMD64. Claiming to be on the average 20% faster, and compatible with 32-bit applications." As usual, it's never a good time to buy a computer.
The War Of The Word, Part II Random Guru 42 writes "Chris Pratley, whose earlier blog entry was the source of much discussion [referring to this Slashdot post of April 27], has just recently replied to everyone's feedback both here and as comments on that earlier entry."
Gentoo Community Reaches Out to Daniel Robbins nporter writes "Slashdot reported the news that Daniel Robbins has stepped down as chief architect of Gentoo Linux. It was revealed that due to his commitment to Gentoo he racked up a hefty personal debt of $20,000. The Gentoo Community is showing its appreciation to its founder in droves by placing donations to the Gentoo Store, proceeds of which will go toward paying down Robbins' debt. I count over a thousand dollars (and growing rapidly) has already been donated, just based upon posts to the forums. It's great to see Linux users coming together like this to show support for someone who has contributed so much to the Linux community."
Bitkeeper redux, redux. gosand writes "Part two of the two-part interview with Bitkeeper author Larry McVoy is up at Newsforge. (Part 1 was posted here yesterday). They essentially talk about why and how BK fits into the kernel development model. There are only two questions, one answered by Larry, and one answered by Linus. Maybe that is because BK makes them 2.5x as efficient, and they can answer everything in just one answer each. :-)"
MS Clarifies: No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies PingXao writes "Unlike earlier reports, this eWeek story says MS will not be allowing pirated versions of Windows XP to install SP2. They plan to release the update within a couple of months as everybody knows, but what's interesting is this quote from a MS spokesperson that supposedly explains their reasons for this approach: "... using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates." Not that I blame them for not providing assistance to people who violate their copyrights, but I wonder if they actually paid someone to come up with that insightful explanation. Something like "We don't provide updates to pirates" would have done the trick. Why cloud the issue with talk about secure this and security that when the basis for the policy has absolutely nothing to do with security?"
Games panel at Smithsonian - update tripmaster writes "For those slashdotters that tried to get a ticket but were foiled by the smaller venue, the panel on games with Shigeru Miyamoto, Richard Garfield and Doug Church being held Sunday, May 16th at the Smithsonian in Washington DC has been moved to a bigger space. Miyamoto should be showing the same highlights of his latest game as premiered at E3. Questions from the audience will be collected and posed to the speakers -- a rare chance to ask query some of games' most visionary and influential creators."
Off again, on again. Doug Muth writes "According to this piece on Yahoo, the restraining order which was issued against SpamCop on May 10th has been dissolved by the judge who further remarked that, 'the TRO [entered May 10] was not a determination of the merits of the case.'"
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
As usual, it's never a good time to buy a computer.
With prices constantly falling and better performance for price as hardware incessantly marches toward being a commodity good, one could just as easily say that it's always a good time to buy a computer.
That's right, folks, only use "genuine" software for that clean, refreshing Microsoft feeling of comfort. The kind you cannot get with pirated software since they won't let you eliminate their own bugs that cause so many Net problems. The kind you cannot get with FOSS since you can see the code for yourself and fix the problems. No, if you want the genuine experience, the kind of out-of-the-box headache that only comes from Microsoft software, insist on "genuine" software! Our bank account balance will thank you.
MS Clarifies: No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies
So much for the herd effect. It's simply, really. If everyone but me has gotten a polio vaccine, I'll still be fine because the polio has nowhere to hide.As soon as 10 - 20 percent of the population isn't vaccinated, suddenly the problem [polio] reemerges.
Why can't Microsoft understand the basic concept?
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
MS isn't saying they won't support Pirated versions - that implies that they're somehow changing their security scheme regarding service packs. They're NOT.
The installation hurdles that existed in SP1 will be back again for SP2 - no more, no less.
Nothing has changed, Move along, Move along...
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
[re: star/open office]Their stated goal is to clone Office97, and they are so focused on that that there simply isn't anything to learn from or appreciate.
While I understand his point, I don't see much innovation between office 2000/XP at all, at least not from an end-user perspective. It's become, to a large extent, bloatware. How much innovation does an office suite need, anyway? You get things like clippy when innovating a basically simply product to death. KISS.
If this feature were to have a regular day of posting (i.e. Every Wednesday at 5:00pm or somesuch time frame) it would go a long way in adding credibility to Slashdot as a source of news.
No joking/flames intended but every news source makes mistakes and has to either back pedal or update or simply roll with an ever changing or expanding story or what would be now defunct "facts".
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson
I think what they're trying to get across is, "If your PC is insecure because you pirated our software, tough shit. Buy it next time and you can stay secure." I don't know that I like that attitude, since these unpatched machines as a whole also affect the people who do practice good security (usually through network traffic), but they're trying to equate "OS piracy" and "security risk", and just might succeed if new worms increase.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
"... using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates."
...
double speak is awesome.
Q: why can't pirates get updates.
A: you shouldn't be a pirate because pirates don't get updates.
Q: i know, i implied they didn't get updates in my question, and you just repeated it to me...
A: you should know that... i just told you.
Q: see, you did it again. why are you doing that?
A: you would be better off if you knew why i was doing this.
Q: REM this is a question.
A:
Q: IS THIS A MICROSOFT PR BOT?!
A: abort; goto end; kill();
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
As a happy Gentoo user, I can testify to the usefulness of the system as a whole. Robbins and his crew really have done it right. It is the least the community can do to give something back to him for his hard work.
We shall see how well the rest of the developers can knit the project together during the following months. It shall be interesting to see who will step forward as the new project leader as well.
"Intellectual Property" should be an affront to anyone capable of independent thought.
Cause it breaks all their pirated games and apps? I suppose they could pirate new ones for it... oh wait there's only a few old ones they've gotten bored of already anyway.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Getting a release for AMD64 is a very good move for Mandrake. I just bought an AMD64 laptop, and I've looked around for linux distributions, but the discussion groups have mentioned problems with many of them. An Official Release by Mandrake is a good sign that the majority of the problems have been solved.
Open Note to Mandrake: I'm running Mandrake right now on my office machine. If this version of Mandrake works well on my laptop, I intend to buy a box. Way to go!
I'm afraid I do not agree with the policy of M$ to attempt to prevent pirates to get this update. I understand blocking piracy at the installation level , but since SP2 is touted to be a huge security update it seems that preventing it from installing on a certain population of systems will somewhat undermine the security of microsoft's global network (ie. the internet). Most of the powerful exploits are currently worms, and unpatched (sp2 disabled pirated copies)systems may serve as propogation nodes to either attack those legitimate(read wealthy)users that have not yet installed SP2 or to exploit windows issues that remain unfixed by SP2.
One scenario is a worm that can release a payload in SP2 or SP1 but can only be propegated by non SP2 systems.
Another is a trojan that permits DDOS or similar attacks from non SP2 systems but that essentially affects everybody.
ôó
I just started an "emerge sync" and donated $5 (I'm a poor student). Gentoo is the bees knees as they say.
I mean it must be comforting to know you can just blacklist the compromised install keys that pirates use and be done with it right? I mean it's not like anyone could possibly have made a key generator for Windows XP right?
Is it just me or are anti-piracy measures just growing more and more inconvenient for legitimate users (product activation etc) and not at all more inconvenient for pirates (who get modified versions with the annoying features removed)?
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Where's the logic here? If you want to use Linux, use it. No one's forcing you to use a Microsoft OS. But don't pirate Microsoft software and expect to get updates. The only question up for discussion is whether not providing security updates for pirates will hurt people besides the pirates themselves.
No, but wait for Slashsdot infomercials. That will be a special section paid for by advertisers which will write the articles on their new products.
Not completely you may be screwed on Unreal but warcraft works under transgamings version of WINE. In fact it got the highest rating for compatibility they have.
www.transgaming.com
Got hosting
All it'll take is 15 minutes and a smart cracker to allow you to install SP2 in all it's glory.
Not to mention that almost all the XP users that have an illegal copy run a "corporate" version with a legit serial number anyways, so this won't even affect them.
Of course, then there's the users that actually won't be able to install it, and we'll all pay for it with clogged up networks due to all the bugs and crap still in there.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
A laptop I bought a few months ago came with XP installed (no choice). Since then it has been made ``secure'' by living in a separate, never-broght-on-the-network partition, and linux now floats over the face of the hardware, and it is *good*.
I don't plan on even installing SP2, although my copy is actually legitimate. So, Billy Gates and his happy minions can kiss my ASP.
Microsoft are saying that they wont provide the latest service packs for their software for pirates. Doesn't most of the world pirate MS Windows? Do you think people pay for it if they had to? What do you think would happen to the market share of Windows if Microsoft make it tougher to pirate their OS? Do you think developers will be so keen to support an operating system with a declining user base?
All this could be a blessing in disguise for Linux/MacOS as people may be forced to look for an Alternative to Windows. I mention MacOS since, although it isn't free, if I had to pay for an OS I know which one I would choose.
JPickard
But, I thought open source products are far more profitable than closed-source projects in the long run. Maybe he quit too soon.
My precise point.
UT2k4 is linux native, jackass.
Warcraft runs under Winex.
Next!
The only question up for discussion is whether not providing security updates for pirates will hurt people besides the pirates themselves.
I think it will. Perhaps I'm not understanding the problem, but part of the damage done by hacked machines is the extra burdon put on the intra/internet. Something has to relay the bits.
and saw this message:
Your order has been successfully processed! Your products will arrive at their destination within 2-5 working days.
I wonder which products they're talking about
Otherwise they'd be saying that they don't care about persuing people who pirate their software. On the other hand, it'll take a day or two just like SP1 for people to get around it. To install SP1 on a machine with a blacklisted cd-key takes about 5 minutes of googling, downloading, reading, and cracking. Outside the corporate world, it seems it's impossible to get caught using pirated software. This whole genuine software bit was just the work of some PR person who's knowledge in software doesn't matter at this point.
And by the way, this isn't going to make anyone switch to linux, i don't care what people say or annoyingly ironic links to gentoo.com they put in their posts. When you don't pay for software in the first place, it doesn't make a difference to switch to free software.
No one's forcing you to use a Microsoft OS.
Ummmm, only my employer you insensitive clod!
Seems to me that Spamcop is now a commercial company, so why is it appropriate to ask for contributions? Isn't defending against lawsuits a cost of doing business?
Oh and P.S. Spamcop, as much as I think Richter and his ilk deserve prison time, unfortunately his case has merit.
Earth is a single point of failure.
Could someone which is using bitkeeper
update this comparison with the bitkeeper data.
Classic case of "He said, she said" http://computertimes.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,510 4,2292,00.html
Unfortunally most people I know who aren't interesting in computers (I'm mainly thinking family members here), just want to turn on their computers, do some typing, send an email and surf the web.
The are simply not interested in updating their OS. Most of them don't understand what updating is for. They only time they worry about it is when I get a phonecall going:
"Ryan, the computer keeps shutting down for no reason.. what should I do?" - then i go in for cleanup, patches, firewall, firefox, etc, etc...
So what happens is that you can end up with lots of legal AND illegal versions of software that aren't patched. I think many people wouldn't even know if they have a legal version or not.. They just use what is given to them.
This is why worms lately have been able to cause so much havic lately. People just don't understand they have to update.
So stopping the service packs from being installed just increases this issue and we have more and more machines on the net that are a breeding ground for worms- its hard to get people to update as it is!
People see all these computers around with problems with Windows and form a bad opinion of it. Isn't it better to try to aim to have ALL copies of Windows installed around the world up to date and working smoothly, than risk getting the reputation that it's a bug-riddled OS?
Live in your skin. Keep changing the scenery.
Equivalent would be holding you responsible because someone stole your well-secured (i.e. Microsoft is hardly negligent for their software being stolen, as they spent a lot of time on anti-piracy stuff) car, failed to change the break fluid, and you didn't provide him with a fluid change so he ends up hitting a pedestrian. Get my drift?
More likely is a suit alleging negligence when a Microsoft product suffers a vulnerability that's exploited before a patch becomes available, though click-throughs are designed to prevent this liability.
"Since you can't use SP2, why not try a different SP? "
Sure, lemme just give up my library of games and climb a steep learning curve to make the switch.
"Derp de derp."
Well, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
I don't think that the parent post was a troll. I actually thing that the causal copiers are *exactly* the type of home users we want to market Linux to.
For the record, I only use the term piracy to refer to organized cartels of copyright infringers. I presume most of the unlicensed copies of Windows XP in the US are from causal copiers or multiple installs from the same media. I think it is important to distinguish these issues in public discussion and policy.
Every unlicensed copy of Windows represents a user who is unwilling to make a choice between paying full price for Windows or moving to an alternative operating system. By helping these people see that there are better deals that they can use without worrying about the ramifications (no service packs or patches, etc.) of using unlicensed copies of Windows.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How is he screwed on Unreal? Epic is one of the few companies that actually supports linux gaming - both server AND client.
I am supposed to keep Windows updated. AND have an antivirus program?
Every one seems to think that SP2 will really, truely make Windows more secure. With Microsofts track record, I'm not so sure. I'm willing to bet that it's going to open all sorts of new problems, and Windows it going to continue to be the mess of an OS that it always has been.
But you do not understand!
The whole point is that you make money from the services that you provide!
Oh wait...ummm..errr...
Quick...look behind you!
*runs away*
Not that I blame them for not providing assistance to people who violate their copyrights, but I wonder if they actually paid someone to come up with that insightful explanation.
:-)
Yes. They're called PR people. And they all sound like that.
The funny thing is, the ones I've know talk like that all the time. It's a little uncanny--having lunch with one feels like reading about your day in PC Week.
For the record, I only use the term piracy to refer to...
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can't tell you.)
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'
I think the pre-orders have paid to finish the development.
Seriously, is doom III going to be as good as touted? Alot of the features I was looking at, that should have been just as revolutionary (as in the first) are now in games on the store shelves. Maybe it is just me but i'm bracing for another disapointment when it finally arives. I might be anticipating too much though. i remeber waisting alot of time on the first DOOM and like the betta/alpha/leaked release I played earlier this year. I guess only time will tell.
I was going from the listings on the web site and the games compatibility list.
Some people need to switch to decaf.
Got hosting
Know, your knot.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
No, but wait for Slashsdot infomercials. That will be a special section paid for by advertisers which will write the articles on their new products.
So you mean now they'll actually differentiate the paid placements rather than just passing them off as regular articles?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Or, alternatively, Cheaplinux.org, for those pirates who are already consuming their cable connection with pr0n and warez.
Speaking as an average user can I just say that I don't wanna play with my kernel. I just wanna type my letters and go home. I don't wanna know what happens behind my desktop.
It's a tool, like my car. I wouldn't have a clue how the engine management system in my car works. Hell, I don't even know if it has one apart from Joe down the garage. So I pay Joe or Microsoft to know that stuff. And it gets updated every now and then and with a little effort and a decent AV package I've never been hit by any worm or destructive virus.
I use a fairly vanilla hardwear setup and when the ease of installation, and use of the OS and applications (and the range of applications) reaches the same level as Windows let me know. I and millions like me just don't have the training, time, or inclination to fiddle with the box.
I appreciate that many do and it is those people who will eventually move Linux up to a position where it can replace Windows. But I object to being ridiculed as a mindless automaton because I don't share your passion for fixing operating systems. Because from a users perspective, it isn't as broken as you claim.
Unless of course the 'you' referred to is the 0.0001% of the computer using population that does eliminate their own bugs or see code and fix it.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
There is remarkable insight into that phrase, BTW, as long as we are clear on definitions. Indeed the question is who is to be master. Is it the RIAA, Microsoft, et. al. who define borrowing a friend's e-book and using alt-print-screen to be piracy, or is it a more moderate interpretation which says that there is a fundamental difference between friend-to-friend infringement and the organized international crime cartels which do such things as burn CD-ROMS in floating factories in international waters.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
>The kind [of bug] you cannot get with FOSS since you can see the code for yourself and fix the problems.
I wish more people could, and I expect if open-source operating systems become the de-facto standard that more and more people WILL be able to read the code and fix problems (after all, this is the infancy of the computer revolution, isn't it?)
But I also believe 99.999% of people using Linux today CAN'T fix kernel bugs.
And the percentage will surely go even higher
(99.999999) when Linux becomes mainstream.
Still, it's the FREEDOM to be able to read the code and fix the bugs that's important.
Commoditizing software and making the software industry into a lot of small, local businesses instead of a few really BIG ones will surely lower the average salary of coders, but I like the vision of a future where truly comitted young people take up computer science not for sports-star salaries, but because they hear the call of it and they will hopefully bring about a rennaissance in computer science.
At least that's what I HOPE will happen.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
So assume, M$ doesn't release SP2 to the illegal WinXP users. Now as all the new (and existing) worms start their squirm of terror over the net, who should we blame? The worm coders, of course; but how responsible is it that a certain company knows that worms will quickly propogate through their widely pirated software and refuse to make available a patch? So the whole internet must pay the price becuase Microsoft wants to get back at the teenagers who won't dish out the $300 for their buggy OS. Yeah, that makes *perfect* sense.
I think you're missing the point. Take the car analogy. This situation is more akin to a manufacturer releasing a car that has faulty brakes. That car is stolen, the brakes fail while the thief is driving off, and an innocent bystander is injured. The innocent bystander can sue the manufacturer for the product defect. It doesn't matter that the driver was not the legal owner - what matters is that the manufacturer was responsible for providing safe brakes and failed to. (please note, this is a simplified fact pattern/result - but you should get the point)
Let's say the thief has the car a few days, hears about a recall, but can't get the car fixed because he doesn't have a receipt for purchase (and for the sake of simplicity - let's say manufacturer provides the fix directly as opposed to a dealer). The manufacturer is then in even more trouble because the car came to the shop, they knew it was faulty, they refused to fix it, and as a result of their refusal to fix the car, the brakes fail and cause an accident to an innocent 3d party. 3d party sues.
This sort of fact scenario is much closer to what MS is saying than your analogy. In terms of car accidents, at least with the 2d scenario, 80% of plaintiff oriented product liability attorneys would get a woody and dollar signs in their eyes (just a guess - could be more).
Eventually, MS will face a suit where an innocent bystander is harmed because MS refused to fix a known dangerous product, and the unfixed versions cause some sort of disruption even for the innocent users. Obviously software and cars are different so I wouldn't gamble on the outcome, but it will be an interesting fight to watch.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
You can have your cookie back.
Sincerely,
Joel Roth
Proud Gentoo Linux User
Microsoft should be required to provide updates and service packs to unlicensed / pirated copies of Windows, because these problems affect everyone, not just the copyright infringing users. Or, they should be required to enforce their copyright and actively persue infringing parties -- both corporate and home users.
As it stands, Microsoft can enforce this at whim. They even benefit from this as they get people "hooked" on software at home where the users are pirating because they simply can't or don't want to pay for it, and then these users come to require and use this software at their office where licenses will more often than not be purchased. In other words, Microsoft is trying to benefit from both sides of the camp. They should be required to stand on one side or the other.
My two cents...
- Twilight1
Negligence doesn't require a prior relationship. If I slip and fall on an walkway in front of McDonalds, I can sue McDonalds even if I've never eaten there in my life. Neligence means that someone responsible for something was lax in their duties and injury resulted.
Microsoft certainly has no obligation to provide support to pirates. They don't have to make it easier. But for them to actually go out of their way to exclude certain users enters is an entirely different matter.
I'm not sure the proper legal term, but basically the party at fault in an issue is the party that had the last opportunity to avoid the problem. If Microsoft has the ability to push out an update that would have corrected a unsafe condition, but doesn't do it, I think the legal case could be that it is negligent.
Of course, it's a stretch but...my other point was that Microsoft has a huge tendency to settle cases, especially ones that might drag out embarassing numbers showing how many infected Windows machines are out there, and how much downtime businesses relying on Windows experience.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
For all you Windows users out there, I have a solution... DON'T UPGRADE!
If you need to use Windows, at least be smart and don't get XP. MS insists on making you jump through extra hoops, so why not stick with good old 2000? It can do anything XP can, without registration, without the nasty new interface, and faster of course. Now that XP is the current Windows version, you can find perfectly legal copies of 2000 really cheap.
Personally, I never upgraded from NT4. It's more stable than any other version (I would know), insanely fast compared to any other version, hardware drivers are always available, and it's still got rather modern Windows features (like DirectX 6). Runs all the same Windows programs as XP/2000.
Now for some interesting prices:
WinNT 4.0 Full $21.00 <-- recomended version
Win 2000 $88.00
Win 95 OSR2 w/USB Full $17.00
Win 98 $49.00
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Granted, the morally right thing to do in this case may be for the dealer to repair anyway--assume the repairs are trivial and cost very little--knowing that not repairing poses a potential risk. Nonetheless, within the realm of tort law, there is no pre-existing relationship or duty of care between the dealer and the thief, nor is there a duty of care between the dealer and the pedestrian. There is a duty of care--formed by the customer/seller relationship--between the dealer and the legitimate customer, but there does not, in my mind, seem to be one between the dealer and the thief.
Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, but I have studied tort law a very small amount, and I do know that there must be a duty of care or preexisting relationship for one to be negligent. I don't see that duty of care here.
But to use your analogy of the car further, although you may not want to learn how the engine management system works, isn't it good to know that you could learn it if you wanted to? That you could open the hood at any time to check on the work the mechanic did? Wouldn't it be awful to be told you weren't allowed to look at your engine and had to trust the auto manufacturer any time they made an adjustment to your car?
That's the freedom part of FOSS. Not that you have to look at the code, but at least you can look at it if you wanted to. You have the freedom to look or not look as you want.
Can't you see we are busy bashing M$ here.
Slashback is about WinXP SP2 not Gent.., oh wait, sorry about that.
Negligence doesn't require a prior relationship. If I slip and fall on an walkway in front of McDonalds, I can sue McDonalds even if I've never eaten there in my life. Neligence means that someone responsible for something was lax in their duties and injury resulted.
Negligence requires a prior relationship or duty of care. The duty can be formed by the relationship, or by some other factor (as in the McDonald's example; there is no prior relationship forming a duty, but the duty is formed by McDonald's ownership of the sidewalk--though I would bet in many places there is a duty formed statutorily between those owning and those walking on sidewalks, which does not exist in common law itself--which requires them to keep the sidewalk well maintained). Incidentally, you would only be able to sue McDonalds if they were lax in their duties (mind you, there is a duty, since it's their sidewalk) of maintaining the sidewalk. The duty or relationship requirement makes perfect sense; why do you think you can sue McDonalds if you fall in front of their store but not if you fall in front of Burger King (given that in both cases, McDonalds fails the ``but for'' test--but for their failure to maintain the sidewalk in front of Burger King, you would not have fallen)? The reason is that relationship/duty of care.
I'm not sure the proper legal term, but basically the party at fault in an issue is the party that had the last opportunity to avoid the problem. If Microsoft has the ability to push out an update that would have corrected a unsafe condition, but doesn't do it, I think the legal case could be that it is negligent.
You aren't quite right about this, either, or at least you are far too vague. In a negligence case, in order for there to be negligence, you must show a duty, a failure to perform that duty, a direct causation between that failure and damages, and the damages themselves.
Duty: there must be some reason that the plaintiff is responsible for your well-being. In the McDonalds example, it is because they own that stretch of sidewalk. In the Microsoft example, I don't see a clear duty owed to the pirates or to other inhabitents of the Internet (the latter is conceivably arguable, but I don't really think so--how do you show that it's my duty to look out for the well being of random other Internet users?). The only duty I see is between MS and their customers.
Failure to perform duty: Given that there is a duty between MS and the pirate, there is certainly a failure. Given that there is a duty between MS and `netizens', there is probably again a failure.
Direct Causation: Actually, I think more tricky than it looks. Depending on statutes, there is often the ability to sort of split responsibility, to say plaintiff A was 40% responsible and plaintiff B was %60 responsible. This is known as ``contributory negligence'' (because A contributed to B's negligence). However, barring that statute, I believe responsibilty can be eclipsed by someone else having greater responsibility, e.g. McDonalds fails to shovel the sidewalk but you decide to wear roller skates. In this case, MS is not nearly as responsible as either the pirate himself or the virus writer. I don't recall exactly how this situation would be handled, if there is no statute for contributory negligence (in which case we might say MS is %20 negligent, for example), but I believe MS gets off. I think.
Damages: Showing monetary damages is not that hard for a business, where professionals have to spend man-hours on some infection.
Anyway, I figured you were joking around, initially. As for MS settling, I seriously doubt it. This might be embarassing, but imagine how much worse it'd be if they set a precedent (even a non-binding one) on this sort of issue.
There is a duty to third parties which requires the manufacturer to refrain from releasing known dangerous defects on the public. So, the thrid party pedestrian, injured because the manufacturer refused to fix a known dangerous condition of the vehicle, would have a case against the manufacturer. A reasonable auto manufacturer would be able to forsee that it's product could cause damage to someone who is and never was an owner of one of its products. It is sound public policy to hold manufacturers liable to third parties damaged by their products else much injustice could be done for want of a purchase receipt.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I do agree that it's a troubling issue, what they should do. But I find it unlikely that they would be legally responsible for withholding patches--if for no other reason, than because surely their counsel discussed this already.
Cheers.
Well, someone was held liable for mental damages when a thief got locked in their garage for a few days with nothing but dog food to eat. So this doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.
Chris
My guess is that you've never dealt with kernel level code.
The average person will never know how, nor care to fix kernel level bugs, or any code-level bug, for that matter.
I'd say it's pretty reasonable to assume that every person in the world who has attended school has taken some math, but nobody knows or cares how to do advanced calculus, even though math has been a part of our culture for hundreds of years.
$45 per U Colocation Special
When you said "relationship" I assumed you meant contractural or financial because in a lot of cases, you need some kind of standing to have a case proceed. I see the connection between McDonald's sidewalk and McDonald's management.
But as I said initially in my analogy, this is more of an issue of public health. If companies are losing money hand over fist every time there is a virus/worm outbreak, there's got to be a pocket somewhere for a clever lawyer to hang a legal argument. Maybe it would be more legally sound to sue individual pirates for using an unpatchable pirate program. But I doubt that is even possible, let alone realistic. I think it is far more likely that some lawyer can make the case that Microsoft refusing to treat infected machines is just as bad as Ford saying they aren't responsible because people didn't underinflate their Firestone tires according to the fine print in the manual instead of going by the proper PSI on the tires themselves.
And regarding settlement, what's so hard to believe? It could be happening every day, that's what NDAs are for. If Microsoft ever did settle, you can bet condition number one would be that no one ever find out about it.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
We probably agree more than dissagree (though I hope I don't sound TOO much like Nader! ;-). I think in my first post I mentioned that unlike the car lawsuit, one against a software manufacturer would be much less certain. Clearly there are real differences between "real" products and software. On the other hand, I would bet money that sometime, somewhere, someone will press the issue. If nothing else, it will be quite interesting.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Seriously, is doom III going to be as good as touted?
Just think back to when quake 2 was about to be released...
-dk
I don't use Windows, and as follows I don't pirate it. But I do expect updates for the pirates. Why? Because they screw up MY network, and Microsoft is to blame. I hate those bitches. Every last one of them.
I, for one, hope this does hurt the pirates. Why? Because anything that stops people from pirating software means they either have to pay for it or switch to something else (say GNU/Linux). Some will pay, but many will switch. I can't count how many times I've offered OpenOffice to people only to have them say they can get M$ Office for free (i.e. pirate it). Stop the pirating and I bet more would be interested.
This may be a little extreme even for Slashdot, but it seems like Microsoft almost has an obligation to support SP2 for everyone, including pirated copies. Otherwise legions of infested computers will linger all over, leading to future headaches for all...
It's almost like they sold teddy bears to children with vials of some terrible virus embedded inside and are refusing to give the antidote to people without a receipt for the bear.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only question up for discussion is whether not providing security updates for pirates will hurt people besides the pirates themselves.
z 2" I think I'd go with the Bryce 3D.
There's not even a question there. It's a given in the whole thing. You think it's bad when people forget to patch and you have a Blaster epidemic, just imagine people that have to pirate a SECURITY patch. I don't kno about most people, but if I was on an ftp server (or whatever is used nowadays) and I saw something like Bryce 3D next to another package that said "WinXP-SP2-security-patch-by-DOD.zip.rar.tar.gz.b
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc, are sworn to try to save lives no matter what.
Microsoft sells a product that you steal.
these are two totally irrelevent subjects.
a better one would be if you stole a car, and then because of the firestone tires that were OEM installed and exploded while driving it normally on the highway, you tried to sue GM.
defense: My client was almost killed due to firestone tires
prosecution: Your client stole the car.
Who do you think would win?
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
I've known boys who grew up repairing and rebuilding old cars. But anything built after 1970 or thereabouts is beyond them. The technologies become progressively more complex, difficult to master, and the tools expensive.
It would take two to four years of intensive study to even make a beginning at understanding the underlying structure and coding of an operating system. Confronting the user with the challenge of reading 50 million lines of code as an example of the freedom of FOSS is ludicrous.
And break other stuff, like some of my good old DOS cad apps -- say TraxEdit, for laying out PC boards, broken by win2k sp2. In the name of security, they get it wrong again, taking the easy way out, just disable it all. Security is hard to get right, and they just don't get it. Sure, I could trade in my copy of EasyTrax or whatever for the now $10k+ Protel toolset, which does nothing new I need. Oh boy, what a deal. Luckily, as we convert and help several large (500+ machines) networks convert to Linux, it seems most of our major interests (compilers, cad tools and the like) are suddenly getting Linux support. Hmmm, things might be going better than some of the numbers show, at present. And oh yeah, we've found win2k machines doing unauthorized "phone home" after some of the more recent service packs in our firewall logs. Gotta get rid of those last few on our network. We do have a machine here running NT4, which came with our old DevStudio subscription, about SP3 or so, and it's been totally reliable (behind a really serious firewall, no browsing or email on this one) for many years. Later service packs caused trouble.
If you use a copy of commercial software you didn't pay for, you are a PIRATE. That's all there is to it. You can be a VERY NAUGHTY pirate if you copy cd's on floating pirate ships, but the individual user is still a pirate.
I prefer to call them "privateers". Wasn't that the official US term for people like John Paul Jones, who the British called "pirates"? Or maybe "freedom fighters".
Now, companies that fix prices of CDs and thus steal from the consumer, who cook the books and steal from their investors and their artists, who stop paying royalties to artists (even well-known ones) because they claim they can't locate them, who engage in illegal and anticompetitive business practices, well, "pirate" doesn't quite fit, it's a bit too romantic, don't you think "organized crime" is better?
defense: My client was almost killed due to firestone tires
prosecution: Your client stole the car.
Who do you think would win?
Obviously the client. The theft in no way altered the functionality of the tire.
The court would rule that the theft is a superfluous detail in the case.
But yeah, I get your drift. If the guy was already caught for the theft due to the accident and he has some time in the slammer due to grand theft auto he would probably pursue the case... and win.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that confronting anyone with the enormous and complex code of an entire operating system as their first steps. I think the point is more that F/OSS software allows you to develop, very slowly in my case, an understanding of how computer code and operating systems actually work.
To reuse the car analogy, you are suggesting that someone's first step as a car mechanic would be to, say, calibrate turbo timing settings or adjust their fuel injection system. I don't pretend to be a car person, but it doesn't seem very likely nonetheless.
You seem to imply that the parent was saying that the freedom of F/OSS is the freedom to instantly know everything about it, which is indeed ludicrous. But, to state the obvious, you are free to look.
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
I think the pre-orders have paid to finish the development.
No, iD is filty, stinking rich. The company, and all of its owners and employees, are rolling in cash. Funding is NOT a problem for them.
I think it will be a very good game. iD knows how to make games. Maybe nothing revolutionary, but something good, for sue.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
In all seriousness, why doesn't Microsoft release a patch that fixes licensed copies of Windows, and cripples unlicensed ones? They have a right to protect themselves from copyright infringment, and they have a duty to make sure that problems caused by their security problems don't screw things up for everyone else. So what if some silly l33t kiddie gets his 0-day copy of XP nuked? Buy it or use something else!
Why can't Microsoft understand the basic concept?
It makes perfect sense to be able to deflect blame to your enemies. The next step is to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hsponsor some independant research into concluding that the net would be safer (from terrorists?) if the government spent more on anti-piracy (or harsher legislation).
As with music CD sales, I think that piracy would be minimised if the prices were fairer. However I'm also aware that the prices have been chosen already to maximize their profit. "Stack them high, sell them cheap" does not apply to monopolies.
congrats, guys, this has been one of the most civil and interesting exchanges i've ever seen on /.
:) end with one of the parties saying "You know, i was wrong, and have changed my mind because of what we've discussed."
you hardly ever hear an argument about religion or politics (or M$
pax,
fred
Most people like me, who aren't interested in cars, just want to get in our cars, start the engine, do some driving, and get to where we want to go.
We are simply not interested in filling the vehicle with gas, or changing the oil, or having tires rotated. We don't understand what oil is for. The only time we worry about it is when OUR DUMB ASSES are stranded on the side of the highway like such stupidity deserves.
So who did I download this copy of RHEL from, then?
plaintiff oriented product liability attorneys
When you mean ambulance chasers, why don't you just say it?
You are approaching, in my mind, a responsibility among all software makers for all bugs
For standard negligence definitions to apply, the vendor either (a) would have to know about the bug and have not taken steps to fix it, or (b) should have known about the bug and fixed the bug if they had behaved in a reasonably competent fashion.
I think this covers most scenarios. I would expect the following additional checks to apply:
1. If software is sold for a particular use, and the bug in question is only a problem when the software is used in a different way, no liability should exist. To extend the parent^n post's analogy, if you put your road car on a racing track and its brakes failed during a race, that's your fault, not the manufacturers. This shouldn't allow vendors to evade responsibility; e.g., if MS put a notice on their EULAs saying 'Windows is not designed for Internet-connected use' or similar, a judge should take one look at the product, say 'this has features that are clearly designed for Internet-connected use, that term's just there to evade responsibility' and dismiss that defense.
2. Software provided and clearly labelled as for testing purposes only should be excluded, except perhaps from really serious errors. Only people who know what they're doing should be using such software, and part of knowing what you're doing (for example) is monitoring your network for suspicious activity and disconnecting your machine from the network if you think you've been infected by a worm.
Programming a proprietory software package $55,000 Programming an Open Source sofware package -$20,000... I wonder which one i'm going to choose. Don't mod me down, thats avoiding the issue. How about you put your mouth where your modpoints are.
No one said you had to quit your day job and start your own whole goddamn Linux distribution; that's a special case.
And, moreover, many more people have gone much broker trying to start their own companies.
"Depend upon it, Sir, this is mere talk. Who is ruined by gaming? You will not find six instances in an age. There is a strange rout made about deep play: whereas you have many more people ruined by adventurous trade, and yet we do not hear such an outcry against it." - Samuel Johnson
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
It is fairly easy to make a windows installation boot disk that will include the first service pack. It's just a matter of overwriting the original i386 tree with the one from sp1.
Why would the trick not work for sp2 ?
Genuine question:
I've just bought UT2K4 on DVD for my Windows XP box. It would be fun (from a sheer novelty factor, apart from anything) to run it on the Linux box and even the Mac Powerbook. Do I actually have to re-purchase the software (since I see that the three versions are sold seperately?
Or is this like Quake III and the original UT, where I can go some place (legally, obviously) and download the executables required to run on the other platforms, and just use the one DVD for the 3.5Gb of data files and necessary license string?
Because if there's one thing that puts me off a platform switch, its not so much the titles that are unavailable at all elsewhere, but the thought of re-buying software I've already paid for once.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Either nobody who uses Gentoo is a multimillionaire, or they are grubby ones at that. To someone who is loaded, $20k is like paying for lunch. Surely if they appreciated Daniel's efforts they could make a charitable donation. How about giving the guy $50k so he can keep working on it, if he so chooses? Or take a long vacation for all his hard work?
Must-not-watch TV!
And the translation is [drumroll, please]...
It's never been a better time to bite the bullet and drop the bad habit known as Windows. The first step is to admit that you always wanted to but were too lazy to do it.
It's simple, really. Computing is an important part of your life. Your homegrown behemoth has had more upgrades than Anna Nicole Smith. Your Windows installation kinda works. It takes 1-3 minutes to boot, another 1-5 minutes to load all it's crap after you log in. It refreshes your desktop icons sometimes for no reason at all, wasting time. It pages all your programs out to disk if you copy an ISO image of Windows XP from one location to another, taking another 2-3 minutes to restore a 5-tab Moz window. But if you wait around long enough, you can get something done with it. The 3rd-party program support is great, you can always go to astalavista and get a crack for most things. So in a sense it's like OSS, only more annoying and much slower in real-world performance. But you don't really support Windows. You're not that stupid, no matter what others may think. You're just a bit lazy, a creature of comfort. A couch potato, if you will.
Well, M$ _is_ that stupid - it's shooting itself in the foot left and right. They are betting you really are that stupid. That there is no line you will not cross, as long as what they take away is in small increments.
The choice is yours. Dedicate a full weekend, with a strict 9-5 schedule and no drinking more than 4-6 beers per day. Hell, buy that new SATA drive you always wanted and _keep_ your existing Windows drives, just in case. Not in dual-boot configuration, in an off-line 'just-in-case' configuration. See how it goes, run the must-haves in WINE. After a few months you'll probably burn a few DVD-Rs and format those 'just-in-case' M$-infected drives and give them away as prizes on your website/blog.
Must-not-watch TV!
You missed the focus point. If a virus exploits a bug in Windows and causes huge disruption to an innocent party, MS has some liability. If MS has refused to fix the bug in large numbers of systems, they have increased the disruption, and they have much greater liability. MS has a responsibility to protect society from the ramifications of failures in MS products. If a repair/recall were to fix a danger that only threatened the user of the product, then the duty of care to a non-customer might be an excuse for refusing to provide the repair/recall; but when the danger affects innocent 3rd parties, there is no excuse.
I may be completed off base here, since I haven't purchased the game, but I was under the impression that one of the reasons for packaging it on the DVD was so that all clients were available on the same disc. Since the game data is the same, all they would have to have is a seperate installer/client executable.
I have the CD version but I imagine the DVD is the same: There is a Linux installation script in the root of the disk. Here's a fun fact: the linux installation doesn't require the play CD (or DVD in your case I suppose) to be in the drive when you play the game which is mighty-nice.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
We prefer to be called "Buccaneer-Americans", thanks.
All Microsoft does is blacklist certain product keys. There's numberous ways to get around this, such as with key gens or key changers. :p
Well, even more than that... one dealer is giving their car away, unlocked hood and all, for free! And it's a more reliable car than the other dealer is trying to sell especially for people that only want to drive to the grocery store (write letters).
It just so happens it's easy to steal the popular car.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
While many companies would write ad copy like the following, would Microsoft write such copy....?
Only use a Genuine(tm) Microsoft(R) operating system. A Genuine Microsoft product gives you the assurance of getting the kind of quality, compatibility, interoperability, reliability, security and stability that you have come to expect from Microsoft products.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Ta for that (and to SoVeryWrong, as well). I'll take a look at the actual disc tonight when I get home.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Starcraft? Age of Kings? (even I have to relent sometimes and cheat my way into a rousing game of AoK) SOF2? I haven't played a game in a long time. :-(
For the first, there is no duty of care established between Microsoft and the pirate, and likely not one between Microsoft and a third party that requires patching pirated software (that is, Microsoft may indeed be held to a general standard to behave as the industry as a whole does, releasing patches in a timely matter for known flaws--but this liability likely only extends to legitimate copies).
For the second, while one could argue contributory negligence, the pirate himself is far more negligent, and Microsoft's actions are arguably not even directly causal (i.e. they may or may not pass the ``but for'' test--but for this action, would the worm have spread? Likely so, because many people still do not patch--thus direct causation is difficult. And even passing the but-for test, MS's actions are still not the primary cause.). So I think you have a very difficult argument. Nothing to do with what's morally right or wrong, but rather with what tort law recognizes as negligence.
So while there may not even be that many cases of such negligence, the question is how to get around EULAs. I suppose legislation could indeed be in order, requiring a degree of liability despite EULAs, although you'd think market pressures would alone be enough (certainly, someone who guaranteed his software would be able to sell quite a lot more--``we cover damages caused up to $5000 if you're exploited before we release a patch'', say). After all, if a car maker had you sign a EULA that said he would never be liable, would you still buy the car?
Anyway, it has indeed been an interesting discussion, and it will be interesting to see where all this goes.
I think that "duty of care" applies to MS vis a vis the general public. The pirate in the middle does not remove this. MS's bug causes huge damage to the general public and it is their responsibility to mitigate that damage to the greatest extent possible.
As far as contributory negligence, I'm willing that conceed that the pirate can be given 90% of the responsibility, while MS gets 10%. Randomly assuming that there are a million pirates involved and a billion dollars of damage, each individual pirate thus is responsible for $900 of damage, and MS is responsible for the other $100,000,000. The class action suit may find it not worth the bother of tracking down the million pirates individually to try to collect those $900 portions of the damage, but MS has all of its collective responsibility in one easily sued pot.
Actually a privateer was someone who had some level of government sponsorship via a "Letter of Marque" which allowed for some legal piracy provided that the ship was also available for government tasks.
I do not think that the word piracy has generally been allowed to be used in the courts here in the US relating to individual infringers (if anyone can provide a counter-example please do so), but rather it is always used to describe wholesale redistribution of copyrighted works.
I.e. if I borrow a DVD from a friend and burn a copy, I am infringing on the owner's copyright unless this is protected under the Home Recording Act (which it might be, for the purposes of this example DMCA issues are excluded from discussion). If I send it to 5000 people or burn a thousand copies to sell on the street corner of Mexico City, that is piracy. Very different. Sort of like the difference between theft and robbery (Robbery always involves theft, but not the other way around).
IANAL, of course.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This great! My research requires doing big numerical calculations.
At last, a scientific explanation for my work ethic! I'll be showing this to the boss tomorrow!
Why? What incentive would anyone have to actually buy their products? (That's just a general question, not specific to this statement)
That question is missing the whole point of my argument. Yes of course it lowers the need to pay for XP. My argument is that they have the RESPONSIBILITY to fix it for as many people as they can as it effects EVERYONE. Not just people with Windows.
No, its more like they sell infectious teddy bears, but you only get the antidote when you pay at the cash register, so anyone stealing the bears dies. But if everyone knows there's a virus in the bear, doesn't anyone stealing one get what they deserve?
Here's the key. In theory, no-one knew the bear was that diseased, OK? It's like a product recall which companies do ALL THE TIME. And they take ANY of the dangerous product back for refund or replacement. If it's a danger to public safety you can't just ignore anyone who doesn't meet your standard of proof.
Does General Motors have an obligation to fix stolen cars under warantee?
If GM cars blew up randomly killing people on the highway, then yes they would have to repair vehicles even where the people could not show registration. In fact car companies do that kind of thing all the time, I don't know that I've had to show registration for any warranty work. I could easily steal a car and take it in if I knew there was a recall.
Does McDonalds have an obligation to ensure that people taking old burgers from their dumpsters don't get food poisoning?
Yes they do in fact, which is why they lock the dumpsters. Stores get sued for that kind of thing you know.
Does you local cinema have an obligation to leave exits open for the benefit of people who sneak in?
It's called fire codes - yes in fact they do have an obligation to make sure doors can open, which means people sneak in through them. Thanks for the support.
Does a cable TV company have an obilgation to ensure that unauthorized connections have a good signal, even if the unauthorized connection cripples the signal going to legitimate subscribers?
Now you're just being an idiot. What does the quality of any cable signal have to do with public saftey? I can't even think of a close metaphor that makes any sense in the context of this discussion.
Does anyone have an obligation to use Microsoft products, when there are free alternatives?
Um, no? Your point?
Does Microsoft have an obligation to support products they genuinely believe are pirated (yes, I know there are problems with product activation; see my last point)?
Yes if they pose danger to the rest of us.
Microsoft does have an obligation to it's paying customers. So perhaps the ultimate solution is to erase the hard drive of any machine with a blocked code (after all, which is more inconvenient: having to provide proof of purchase, which you need for after-sales support of just about any other product, or having the 'net clogged by unpatched machines?).
Now you are starting to make sense. I don't care how Microsoft arrives at the solution, they have an OBLIGATION to repair, as much as possible, a terribly unsafe situation that they have created. If there are a thousand computers that are DDOS zombies and they know beyond all doubt they were pirated, I see nothing wrong with nuking those computers. I don't see why you would have a problem with that. In fact I would go further and say there should be network police of a sort that had a right to make sure infected computers stayed off the net until cleaned (in reality of course it is impractical to have such a force).
If you think that having to provide proof of purchase is too hard, just switch to some other platform that doesn't have the same problems (Linux/Mac OS). Its your choice.
Of course I have already. I don't think it's too hard, I just think it is unreasonable for MS to draw a l
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley