Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista RC2 Available
GarstMan writes to mention that Microsoft has released what it hopes will be the last version of Windows Vista to go through the testing process. From the article: "This new build of Windows Vista offers users a higher level of performance and stability - improving what was established in Windows Vista RC1. We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2. Thank you to our beta testers for the bugs and feedback you submitted for RC1. The improvement shows as we raised our quality bar even higher! Platforms and Services Co-President Jim Allchin has just posted a special announcement letter of RC2 to Microsoft Connect for the Windows Vista Technical Beta Testers."
There will be a release candidate 3 Beta released as well. You'll just have to pay money for it in stores.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Here's the direct link to the 2552.6GBGB ISO image: Vista RC2 build 5744.
I agree with the assessment that Microsoft's labeling of RC's is a bit silly.
But "If they are fixing bugs.... perhaps what they released was a beta" takes it a little too far. If they didn't fix any bugs, it would be simply a Release, not a Candidate.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
offers users a higher level of performance and stability
ie: We added -DNDEBUG to the compiler command line.
Now this is the kind of honesty you have to appreciate.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc2/en/do wnload.htm
enjoy
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
I for one am very much looking forward to using Window's Vista once it is fully released. There seems to be much to look forward to; new features, better stability, better performance. I'm reading up on it right now on the Microsoft Website, and I can't wait to install it on my old Acer laptop. She's only got a 1.5 ghz celeron and an old intel graphics chip, but I'm sure that..... .....wait, what do they mean by 'Minimum system requirements'?
First build that i've installed with 0 issues on 3 pcs and one of them being my frankenPC that always gave me hell.
RC = Frozen API
RTM = Release
Release candidate means "You can build your release software against this version as the API is frozen and we are just working out the kinks"
RTFA:
We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2.
Takes time to implement some good bugs, or else the users would not stay hooked to the "Patch Tuesday"/WGA
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Nobody likes DRM but it's neceassary evil.
It is not necessary; it's just evil.
Now, if there was standard DRM then books would be released electroically that you could search through or have search engines search through.
Actually, this is unlikely. And in any event, the benefit of making the book searchable is dubious given that the DRM could be used to limit your ability to search it, that searching isn't really important for some books (e.g. most works of fiction), and that the DRM could be set up so that it cost you money every time you used the book in particular ways, or at all.
I think that a better solution would be to a) prohibit authors et al from having copyrights if they use DRM at all, b) not just legalize circumventing DRM, but have the government help (with funding, coordination, and dissemination of the uncopyrightable plaintext), and c) to make some other alterations to copyright, such as beefing up deposit requirements (so that electronic copies are on file with the Library of Congress) and shortening term lengths (so that the book will enter the public domain quite rapidly, if the author et al even bothers to pursue copyright to begin with).
Don't be such a defeatist. Stand up for a change, and fight for what you want!
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What you consider to be fair use doesn't matter, as it turns out you are not emperor and do not make the laws. That is most certainly NOT fair use. Fair use info can be found here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/index.html. It's somewhat complex but what it comes down to is fair use allows you to use parts of a copyrighted work without permission for the purposes of commentary, criticism, parody and such. It does not allow you to make as many copies of something as you want just because you feel like it. That's infringement.
... but is there anyone on Slashdot who is NOT an evangelical geek who's tried one of the Vista RCs and has something useful to say about it? This joking/FUD is getting tiring.
For once I'd like to see an opinion from someone who tried Vista without any biases.
It's an RC. Release Candidate. By traditional labeling, a release candidate is a possible release. You release the RC, and in a few days/weeks/months, if no "major" bugs are found, you release it without change. Anyone who tried RC1 can tell you that it was most certainly NOT ready to release without change.
Right about now a million MS fanboys are screaming "But people found bugs, so they needed to fix them and make a new RC." But some of the bugs that were "found" and features that were missing were so glaring and obvious, there's no possible way MS expected it to be an actual release. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but they're simply not dumb enough to think RC1 could have been the real release. In the entire rest of the computing world, that's called a "beta." Like it or not, that's just the way it is.
Opera, for example, uses their final release candidate as the final release. Just check out their weekly builds. September 18 was RC1, September 19 was RC2 (with a single bug fix), and on September 21 RC2 was released as 9.02. Same build number and everything. That's how it's supposed to be.
Maybe not
While I'm sure I'll get some fairly smart-ass responses to this post, most of you trashing Vista probably haven't even touched it. Sure, some of the comments are funny, but most of its mindless trolling. Its more of contest for a "+1 Funny" than anything else.
For those of you who have tried it (at least since RC1, everything before that was junk), and don't like it, then its not for you. Stick with whatever you have and move along. Your decision to not purchase Microsoft software will send a message.
For those of you haven't, give RC2 a try, its free - at least for about 8-9 months or whatever. You can then judge all its flaws and gasp, maybe even give feedback to Microsoft so that maybe they can do something about it. Just make sure you are constructive rather than "get rid of DRM" which probably won't accomplish much of anything.
agressiv
I'll try Vista. But first I gotta drink a quart of whisky and nail my penis to a picnic table.
Let's hear it for Akamai! Microsoft has been using Akamai for every public Vista release. More amusing is that Akamai is running on Linux.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Yeah, but getting it from the source doesn't give you that "OMG WAREZ" feeling that downloading off a shady BitTorrent tracker does.
Vista is so big and bloated that Microsoft's own developers don't understand it completely and consider it overly complex. It's so bad that they've already publicly discussed starting over for the next one (codenamed "Vienna") and just running pre-Vienna apps in a virtualized sandbox.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No it wasn't, you're first thought was "oh excellent a Vista article, another chance to karma whore with some tired geek tough talk about how I don't care about Vista, the OS I will be pirating the moment it is released!"
Yes, it is necessary, or else everything would be pirated to hell and back.
And piracy is bad, because?
Remember, while I'm a copyright lawyer, I'm also thoroughly a utilitarian when it comes to copyright. This means that I only care about what best serves the public interest (which is divided into three sub-interests: creating and publishing original works, creating and publishing derivative works, and having no or minimal copyright) and not at all about authors or publishers, save for how that might affect the public.
the issue of creators' rights
Their rights are what we choose to give them, and we should only choose to give them rights when, and to the degree that, it serves our purposes to do so. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or an inherent right. It's artificial and granted for the purpose of the public good, like a municipal cable TV monopoly.
Basically, you guys want to stack everything in favor of the pirates and against the creators.
No, only in favor of the public. If the authors benefit from this, good for them. If not, I don't care. I take into account how the public benefit is affected by the benefit of authors (in much the same way that a farmer who raises eating chickens is concerned for the health of his flock up until he's ready to slaughter them, since this is what is best for him -- that the chickens would prefer a long and natural life is of no concern) but I am never going to support giving authors anything that is purely at the expense of the public with no greater benefit involved. That would be waste.
This means that where pirates interfere with copyright that maximally serves the public interest, I am against those pirates, since they are ruining it for the rest of us. But where copyright is excessive (as it is now, IMO) and does not maximally serve the public interest, then some of the piracy is perfectly okay and in fact should be legalized, to reduce copyright down, closer to where it is ideal again. More copyright is not a good thing; in fact, it's generally worse than less.
But it would be quite unlikely for me to support no copyright at all, which is basically what you're accusing me of. I wouldn't say I never would, but the situation that would give rise to that is pretty improbable.
Besides, the GPL is essentially a form of DRM (digital rights management).
No, the GPL is basically a contract. It doesn't interfere with the underlying law, in the way that DRM invariably does. For example, it is possible to reject the GPL, and then use portions of GPL'ed code pursuant to fair use, and still be acting lawfully. Whereas, if a work is DRM'ed, then it is going to interfere with fair uses just as much as with unlawful ones, because it is a simple, stupid restriction that cannot tell the difference.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If you live in a country when it is illegal to watch your own damn DVDs then you have problems!
(insert anne rand quotation about the imposibility of governing an honest man)