Slashdot Mirror
Linspire/Microsoft Agreement Useless to Users
Stephen Samuel writes "Groklaw host PJ has dissected the 'patent peace' agreement between Linspire and Microsoft, and has determined that what Linspire agreed to is next to useless for many users. Essentially, under the agreement Linspire software is almost unusable: 'You can't share the software with others, pass it on with the patent promise, modify your own copy, or even use it for an "unauthorized" purpose, whatever that means in a software context. You must pay Linspire for the software, but then the "covenant" says to use Linux, you must also pay Microsoft. That payment doesn't cover upgrades. Linspire said it was absorbing the initial fees, but I don't know about upgrades. New functionality means you lose your coverage or presumably must pay again.'"
Linspire should just expire.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Luckily there are 300 other distros to choose from :)
I'd like to know Eric Raymond's take on this. Isnt he on the linspire board or something?
Isn't it much more like Linspire/Microsoft Agreement makes Linspire useless? Additionally, that is an understatement also since the general idea of useless is that you won't get anything good from it. In this scenario, it should be Linspire/MS Agreement Toxic to Users.
I think they have a great business-plan
1. Start a Linux distribution
2. Get Microsoft's attention
3. Get millions from Microsoft (more then they will ever earn selling it), agreeing to everything Microsoft ask.
4. Go out of business
I think more distributions should do it... (as long the really serious ones don't)
Microsoft's tactics in providing "patent agreements" remind me of the SCO days when they made an assumption that Linux "belongs" to them because of some vague "infringements". Based on this assumption, they start doing wonky things like charging $699 per seat for the right to use Linux, and other such nonsense.
MS is operating along the same lines. The assumption is that you owe Microsoft something for using Linux, hence the need for such agreements between MS and Linux vendors.
It's classic FUD, but I don't know if MS would actually sue anyone. Unlike SCO Microsoft has a bottomless pit of money, and yet MS may not be large enough to successfully try and destroy Linux via patent infringement lawsuits.
We'll see how it all plays out. Will Microsoft embarass themselves the same way SCO did? One thing's for sure, if Microsoft decides to play the patent game, they too are at risk of getting countersued for whatever patents they infringe (and based on how many software patents are out there, there's sure to be some).
linspire isn't any good? I am no expert on that particular distro but I have always kinda assumed it was worthless. at the moment I am very happy with arch and intend to keep using it for quite a while. hopefully it is small enough to be under M$ radar. it also helps that it appears to not have a real for profit group at its head to sell our of our souls off for us.
thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
I think they should have called Lindows a better name.. Windux. On second thought, the judge probably would have ruled that they have to wash all the windows at microsoft campus for infringing on trademarks twice.
How about objective analysis instead?
How about reading the article and point out some actual errors in it?
I did, and most points she makes seem valid to me...
What facts did you use for your objective analysis of groklaw?
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Having tried out a TON of distros over the years, I fail to see how Linspire even registers a blip on the news radar. Never was it even in the top 20 most popular (either w/unix-heads or non). Sad to say, this just makes them even more worthless. Thank goodness for the TONS of great distros out there still to help spread the great word about Linux.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi
How is this news? OMG. A Microsoft contract limits what you can do with what they perceive to be their property. Everyone already knew that would be the case. Its a contract with Microsoft. If some company or individual wants to purchase Linspire in order to limit their liability, they can knock themselves out. If you don't feel like paying the Microsoft tax, use some other distro. What I do find to be interesting about this article is the fact that even though it appears to be written by someone that has a decent understanding of the law, the author fails to mention that this contract, even if you do choose to modify the software, does limit the liability of the purchasing party. This is due to the clause about bug fixes. The language here is purposefully vague. This means that even if Microsoft chose to sue someone they would have trouble proving that there was patent infringement. If they managed that they would have further trouble proving that the patent infringement was purposeful. For those that do not know, the penalty for intentionally misusing a patented technology is significantly higher than doing so unknowingly. Anyway, I am sure that everyone here will hate this post, because they will assume that it is pro-Microsoft, but I have trouble keeping my mouth shut when I see deliberate misinformation being passed around as fact.
Isn't Linspire's only claim to fame the fact that it was briefly bundled on ultra cheap PCs as a Windows substitute because of a look-a-like GUI? Did it have any technical merits over other Linux distributions that would make it worth mourning over?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Yeah, go and read M$ PR bulletins instead. The get the facts campaign is so about truth.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Yes, Linspire has become useless. What company wants that legal baggage? Once again, Microsoft is adversarial.
The Groklaw analysis needs further translation. In my opinion, the contract says, effectively:
1) Microsoft can do anything it likes.
2) You have no rights.
Microsoft operating systems need constant attention that costs 10x as much as the original sale price, in my experience. According to Microsoft, you have no right to a good product.
Who owns *MY* computer? Me, or Microsoft?
It's about time someone with a large patent portfolio started shaking down Microsoft customers. This party could do a deal with an OEM and threaten to sue end-users who purchased from anywhere else.
Hey Microsoft, don't you just love it when a plan comes together?
"Have you ever, ever felt like this / Strange things happen when your going 'round the twist"
Unlike most other Linux distributions, Linspire was conceived primarily as a business enterprise. Consider this a buyout, albeit one that harms affirms FUD affecting all other distributions. Also consider how the beating that Linspire has taken from MS in the past may affect their willingness to stand strong in the face of MS threats now - however vacuous.
While I won't miss Linspire I am interested to know the future of Robertson's only real valued contribution to the GNU/Linux family of operating systems - CNR. Perhaps Shuttleworth should click-and-run with it while he still can (though Klikit looks like a pretty good fallback).
So I'm no Kreskin... but M$ has never been subtle about it's desire to pretty much play Mongul Horde all over the face of modern computing. I think this is clearly M$ pulling an old tried and true lan out of their own gamebook and simply reverting to business as usual. I'm guessing the plan will look something like;
Have I missed anything? Probably. Y'know, if they put aside this whole Genghis Kahn, I gotta own the whole freakin world mentality, and just started committing themselves to doing good things for humanity... the rest would take care of itself. Oh well. This is going to be an interesting show! Who's got the popcorn!
Do we really need a slashdot story about this? I thought it was common knowledge that it was useless.
A week ago, there was this article which said Microsoft excludes GPL3 from the Linspire deal, and I wondered whether Linspire had any significant userbase in the US
/. must simply ignore this deal and related news - it doesn't matter much.
That post got modded Interesting, but didn't get any replies, so I'm really not sure whether Linspire is alive in the corporate segment, which should be the segment that worries about patent suits... like SCO sued Daimler-Chryssler (?) and lost face.
I can't imagine a company like Linspire would inspire any confidence in knowledgable markets like in Asia... The manner in which they caved in during the Lindows trademark dispute with Microsoft was suspicious and intriguing as well.
At a guess, just how many customers does Linspire have, if any? A few hundreds? In which case, I think
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The agreement is contradictory to the GPL license.
... bill gates got his start by porting BASIC and then yelling piracy because he wasn't delivering in a reasonable amount of time.
The Agreement is null and void because of the contradiction with the license.
It should also be noted that Microsoft
Second was the sale of MSDOS to IBM but Microsoft did not, at the time of selling it to IBM, own it nor had they even contacted the creator if it.
Is this another example of MS profiting off of what they do not own or have a right to?
Of course it is and it shows what scum Microsoft really are.
Trying to use and agreement that invalidates a license while using libel against the software developer with claims of piracy - patent infrigment on what is by nature not patentable but itself "software patents" an act of fraud supported by the US government. And MS does not present any proof of what is supposedly infringed.
Really people, this is the essence of Microsoft. What they are doing should be pursued legally as it certainly is an intentional consumer deception at various levels.
MS is still attacking Open source software. Make no mistake between what they say and what they do.
Okay, when you install MS-Windows, what icon do you get on your desktop?
That's right. "My Computer." (Among others. Stop yer quibbling.)
Who owns that icon?
That's right. Microsoft.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hopefully this will just put people off using Linspire, which is no big deal in the long term. Last I checked, Linspire was full of all manner of nasty closed-source shite which the world would be better off without. If the Debian developers aren't pissed off to the back teeth at the way some people (and not just Linspire) have bastardised their "100% i-tal forever" distro, they deserve sainthood in at least as many religions as there are platforms on which Debian runs.
Never forget, it was Linspire who provided a lot of the funding for Pidgin when it was called Gaim (which was so staunchly GPL that they didn't even make the usual OpenSSL exception; it was GNUTLS or no MSN), then -- as soon as they realised that the terms of the GPL meant they could never get the code all to themselves, cage it up and take away the Source Code -- left the developers right in the lurch with the AOL lawsuit.
Fortunately, the GPL prevailed; the developers were able to fork their own code and give it a new name, but it just goes to show how some people will double-cross you at the last minute.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Essentially, under the agreement Linspire software is almost unusable: 'You can't share the software with others, pass it on with the patent promise, modify your own copy, or even use it for an "unauthorized" purpose,
Wow, it's unusable. The only thing you can do is... use it. WTF?
New functionality means you lose your coverage or presumably must pay again.
New functionality presumably must pay again? How does a software upgrade pay a bill?
Comment of the year
A Microsoft contract limits what you can do with what they perceive to be their property.
This is the crux of the matter.
They do *not* "perceive [it] to be their property." They *claim* it is their property, but refuse to prove in any way, shape, or form that it *is* their property.
So.
The rest of your post is essentially mumbling about contract law, of which you come close to admitting you know almost nothing. You are saying your opinion is worth more than someone who actually knows something about contract law?
There was no misinformation about the Groklaw post. PJ stated that the Linspire/Microsoft deal, which was touted as something good for the customer, is in fact *bad* for the customer. The customer is actually purchasing a product that is hobbled, and actually *using* the product pretty much voids the whole Linspire/Microsoft "value-add."
It was actually a very good dissection of the agreement, as it affects the customer. It shows that Microsoft most definitely got the better of the deal, and Linspire and their customers kinda got shafted.
But, anyone who deals with Microsoft ends up getting shafted.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Yeah. Because we *hate* when people back up their opinions with facts.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Who do you think started the SCO lawsuits?
SCO was a trial balloon for Microsoft. Though Microsoft's pipe fairy, SCO got a hot cash injection. They started making wild claims, which drove their stock up quite nicely, thank you.
Then they started suing, and everything went downhill. SCO discovered they actually had to *prove* something. So, we've been fortunate enough to witness a corporation spinning faster and faster until rotational velocity rips it apart. It's kinda cool.
Here's what Microsoft learned from SCO: *accusations work.* They work very, very well. Make vague, unsubstantiated claims. Oh, don't go as far as Darl McBride. He's an ass. Instead, insinuate. Make a few direct claims, let those claims disappear, then play on the doubt those claims left behind.
It's working surprisingly well. The one thing that's backfiring, though, is that Microsoft has associated their name with Linux, in a strange approving sort of way. This is PR that Linux couldn't buy. I have non-geek people asking me about Linux these days, people who'd never heard of it before.
Anyway, Microsoft will never take this to court. They would be complete fools to disregard the SCO effect.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Can't see why they went and buckled over the name, after all Lindows is a Surname which goes back some to the 1300's in the UK.
www.familysearch.org has 3 people with the surname of 'Lindows'.
1. DANIELL LINDOWS - International Genealogical Index / GE
Gender: Male Christening: 29 JAN 1607 Konigsberg In Neumark, Brandenburg, Preussen
2. GERTRUD LINDOWS - International Genealogical Index / GE
Gender: Female Christening: SEP 1620 Konigsberg In Neumark, Brandenburg, Preussen
bothe the children of JUERG LINDOWS and VRSULA MEKELBORGE.
Also the Surname of 'Lindow' has loads of people from all over the world, including the USA, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Australia and China with various spellings of the name.
If anything, these events can only reinforce his views that he wants "to see Microsoft broken on the wheel not by government fiat but by enlightened consumer choice".
Uhm... I'd like everyone in the world to realize that getting along together is the only hope of making it out alive. How likely is *that*?
"Enlightened consumer choice" is an oxymoron. There tain't no such thing.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm not the anonymous user you're replying to, but PJ has little credibility with me.
PJ started losing credibility when she started calling things like an OO.o plugin made by Novell a fork of OO.o. Her exact reasoning is "It may not be what it says, but to me it's what it means." and "To me, it's a fork because of the patent deal."
Then stories that are blatant Microsoft bashing, like A Brave New Modular World - Another MS Patent Application, started popping up.
Then the GPLv3 posts started popping up.
One of the moments I remember the most is when PJ accused Linus of "enabling the Microsoft patent strategy" by remaining with the GPLv2, at which point I lost all respect for her.
So no, Pamela is not an unbiased source, particularly not when it comes to the GPLv3... and it's not surprising, since she was on one of the committees that created it.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Microsoft is a dead company. the stink of the cadaver is still strong. today they're nothing more than a giant law firm that owns some terrible expensive software and does government surveillance on users. They are so far from innovation and relevant productive computing, it is GAStly. Repeat repeat Microsoft is a dead company. Seriously, at this point isn't the objective of their government enabled, and funded through use of the (shit), monopoly, isn't the point now to have consumer desktop that can be spied upon?
As far as Linspire, c'mon it was a joke to begin with: linux with paid subscription software and ungrades. I just wonder how in the hell they got this far??? Utterly perverse. And now they got their check from the man so they can go away. Using Linux to extort money from the public through Microsoft. Beats working for a living, right? Everyone wants in on the new deal. Hurry hurry think of a tech-age scam. Sell pixels, invent a social networking site or even a popular blog with ad revenue. Get yours, I got mine. Is that it?
No really. Who is Linspire to those of us that use Linux?
The people I know that Linux don't use Linspire. They use Suse, Red Hat & Fedora, Ubuntu, and a host of other distros. Most of us get downloads from Linux archives, release company's sites or distro sites. I've never seen Linspire on any of those.
I remember some rumblings about them being sold at Walmart but I have never seen a Linspire box at any of our Walmarts. I didn't even realize Linspire was still around.
So, do they even have any market share today? Anybody really use it? Hardly anybody uses it now and if this deal causes more people to shun them, will anybody even notice? Who is Linspire anyway?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
DeCSS is legal in Norway, but only because Norway requires the DRM to be "strong," which the courts have decided that CSS is not. DeCSS is still illegal in the EU and the UK however, thanks to the EUCD. The only perceivable difference with regards to circumvention, becides the "strong" DRM argument that can be made in Norway, is that the EUCD must be adopted and enforced by the EU member states, whereas the DMCA, as a federal law, has its own enforcement within the US.
My wife is a good example. She has an older Dell laptop but long admired my PowerBook, and wanted a new laptop for her birthday. So we bought her a MacBook Pro.
So I set it up for her (which mostly involved adding the MAC address to the wireless access list and installing a couple of apps) and turned her lose with it. Almost the first comment she made to me was that her favorite site (some home design TV show thing) wasn't showing the videos. Sure enough, HGTV's Design Star (I think it's called) site uses a codec that's not supported in Safari. Flip4Mac solved this, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect a less-technical user like my wife to figure out that a video codec is unsupported, discern that an application is needed to enable playback, then find, download, and install that app. Especially on "less-friendly" distros of Linux.
I agree with your assertion that the market will decide, but I wouldn't rule out the average user finding it annoying when something on the Internet that "always worked before" doesn't work on first boot. Whether that "first boot" experience is a factor in purchasing is something else.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Let's call it what it is...
Limpspire.
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_news_pressreleases _archives.php?id=213/
Ubuntu 7+ is supposed to be using Linspire's CNR technology (Is it?). How does the Linspire/MS agreement affect Ubuntu (since they have refused to sign anything wiht MS). Has anything happened in this scenario? I'm not aware of any. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Since Groklaw's PJ isn't "objective" enough, it should be easy for you delivering such an objective analysis of the Microsoft-Linspire covenant. I have read PJ's "non objective" analysis and while I'm not a lawyer, I have to say that her arrows seem to hit the mark. Now I'm waiting for you delivering really objective insight into the Microsoft-Linspire deal.
BTW: For me it looks like Linspire now is in similar comfortable position, an insect sitting on freshly glued fly paper is. They wanted to taste that yummy stuff they were smelling but what they got was a douche of deadly glue delivered by Microsoft's clever lawyers.
How stupid (or desperate?) do you have to be signing such a contract? Or did Linspire hire its lawyers at the homeless shelter? (Not to insult homeless people. They probably are making cleverer decisions when it comes to things which really matter for their survival).
R.I.P Linspire.
It doesn't effect anything..
Read Mark's blog he posted about this ages ago...
With regards to the CNR technology what is the big deal. Linspire rsyncs Ubuntu debs and allows people to download them and pay for some commercial packages on a website. Hardly a "deal". I'm still going to use apt-get anyway.
Linspire is no longer a Linux "Opensource" Product. Shame on them!
Actually, she's correct about the OO.org fork. Can you fully read the documents created in a Novell OO.org (with it's MS enhancements) in a normal OO.org?
What you wrote speaks to expertise, not bias.
Having a point of view when you know a great deal about a subject
is normal. It doesn't invalidate the analysis. On the contrary.
You do realize that pretty much everyone (could) have had input on the GPLv3, right? Hell *I* had an impact on it (I was the first to bring up internationalizing the M-M Warranty Act section) and I'm a non-lawyer nobody from the internet.
Anyhow, you bring in a lot of claims of bias, but where are the facts wrong? That's what I care about. I don't care that you disagree, but how doesn't the patent deal split the community? I mean, no one would be arguing if it didn't... right?
And just why do you think it's unfair to bash Microsoft for patenting OS-based adware? Stuffing adware into the OS is exactly the kind of Google-killing thing they're after, so I don't think they'll just sit on the patent. And Google is #1 on their enemies list if you've ever heard Ballmer. After all, what better way to go after Google than to take a slice of their ad revenue? Same deal with the Windows search: it became a priority after Google desktop cut into "their" turf. Forget the crap about it being anti-trust or not, you *know* it means they're out to crush Google. Hell, it was Google where we got the whole chair-throwing episode from, remember?
Anyhow, you're behind the times on the GPLv3, even Linus isn't slagging it any more, although he's not looking to switch right now. Old flamebait stories cobbled from ancient LKML threads aside, most of the fuss has died off.
So enough with the bias. If you want to convince me that someone isn't credible, give me some wrong facts to back it up. The only thing you've shown me is that you disagree with her opinions. Surely you can find at least one fact that proves her wrong? After all, to have a different opinion, you should be basing it on some sort of fact... right?
Weird, sounds to me like you have a bias on the GPLv3 issue yourself that colors your opinion of Pamela's opinion as "bias". After all, the part where you "lost all respect for her" was due to her saying something that is factually true -- GPLv2 would allow MS' strategy of inserting patent-encumbered code into GPL software then suing users of said software. The only thing that could make that an "accusation", as if Linus was deliberately trying to help Microsoft, is your own bias.
She wasn't accusing Linus of helping MS put patent landmines in the Linux Kernel. She was asking if Linus' concerns regarding the GPLv3 were worth leaving Linux (legally) exposed to the possibility of patent landmines by sticking with GPLv2. Which is a perfectly reasonable question.
The enemies of Democracy are
PWNED
I bought a PC with Linspire preinstalled less than a year ago, now I'm thinking it was a bad idea. The company that built the PC no longer installs any Linux distro on PCs. Now Linspire is screwing around too. I'm glad I decided to get a Macbook Pro for a laptop.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It is if you use Automatix.
Ah but you still have to install Automatix and how many people new to Linux will be able to install it without giving up?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Using MS Windows for so many years is *why* I switched to Linux.
Same here, with one change: "is *why* I am switching to Linux and Macs."
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm biased against the GPLv3 because it tries to step beyond the law.
Example: "To 'convey' a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying."
This particular gem was put there to try and trap Microsoft due to the Novell-Microsoft deal. I'm no Microsoft lover, but this is a brazen attempt to bypass existing copyright law. Just try taking it to court. TRY IT. I dare you. If it's in the US, I'll even pay for a plane ticket just to watch your face get metaphorically slapped by a judge.
A license is used to grant rights that someone wouldn't already have. I don't need it to buy or receive your product. I don't need it to sell or give away your product either, thanks to the doctrine of first sale (Title 17, Section 109 for US Copyright law). I need it to make and distribute copies. If someone else can legally make copies, they call sell them to me and I can resell them to others. Yes, that's conveying. No, I don't need a license for it. No, that's not against the law.
Pamela would like you to think it is.
Back to the subject of Pamela and the GPLv3, I think Linus put it best:
Of course, Pamela never replied to that.
Linus brings up one point that I cannot emphasize enough: This shouldn't be an us versus them thing. We know who the enemy is (Microsoft), but we can't stoop to their level to stop them.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I am no expert on that particular distro but I have always kinda assumed it was worthless.
For those switching from Windows to Linux, Linspire is pretty good. I'm switching myself from Windows, to both Linux and OSX, and got a PC with Linspire preinstalled. Windows users will be comfortable with it, bootup and it looks resembles and acts like Windows. It's easy to install software after registering, just go to the CNR warehouse to select what software you want, then click one button to install the software. To uninstall click another button. If the warehouse doesn't have what you want Linspire can install .deb packages. If it only comes in an .rpm package Linspire has a download that converts then to .deb packages. Linspire also has legal codecs to play dvds as well as some proprietary software such as Crossover you can buy. I can't verify the quality of them but there are thousands of programs in the warehouse.
at the moment I am very happy with arch and intend to keep using it for quite a while.
While I have Linspire installed on one of my PCs, Redhat and Windows are on the others, I plan to install and try out Ubuntu on it also. Right now though I'm looking for a dvd drive for it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
In my original post I asked "Ah but you still have to install Automatix and how many people new to Linux will be able to install it without giving up? ", I didn't specify Ubuntu or Linspire. Ah, going back up the thread I see the person you replied to did specify Kubuntu. However my question still stands, how many switchers will know how to install Automatix? I have Linspire and your post is the first tyme I heard of it.
Ubuntu is based on Debian and includes dpkg in the base install.
So is Linspire. That doesn't mean all Debian, Linspire, or Ubuntu users know dpkg is in the base install. I didn't even know what dpkg was until I looked it up after you mentioned it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You don't need to know. It just works.
Do you know how Windows handles .msi files when you double-click them?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I don't need it to sell or give away your product either, thanks to the doctrine of first sale (Title 17, Section 109 for US Copyright law). I need it to make and distribute copies.
You did notice that "convey" is defined to be a subset of "propagation", which is defined just above as that which would be copyright infringement, specifically making and distributing copies. "Convey" is a form of "propagation", and your reading it to mean the transference of a single instance of software without creating new copies a-la reselling your software is incorrect. Just like when copyright law itself talks about distributing a copy, they don't mean transferring a single legally acquired instance to someone else, they mean creating a copy, keeping the original, and shipping the copy off to someone else.
Of course, Pamela never replied to that.
Well she never said GPLv3 was the only free license, or that we had to do whatever the FSF said unquestioningly. And she had already explained why she felt v3 was superior to v2 on many occasions. So what would have been the point of replying? To brush off the flamebait then repeat herself?
Linus likes to be pragmatic, not political, which is well and good. Linus' problem is that he thinks the two are mutually exclusive. The license that applies to your software has a huge effect on the practical uses for said software and on the practical development paths for that software. Linus is ignoring the flaws of the GPLv2 in an effort to be pragmatic, but that isn't pragmatic because that doesn't make the flaws go away and doesn't keep people from exploiting those flaws.
A good example is his comments on the anti-tivo clause. We shouldn't use legal means to stop a use of technology, he argues, in particular because if you make it illegal then only the "good guys" are really prevented from using it and it's the good guys we want on the forefront of technology. Sound advice, except... If they are putting a modified Linux kernel into a hardware device and not releasing the source, thus violating the spirit if not the letter of the GPL, they aren't the good guys! So then Linus argues that these bad guys trying to keep the source secret aren't going to respect the law, right? Well we aren't talking about outlaws and gangsters, we're talking about software vendors who, presumeably, would like to be able to legally operate in this and other countries. Which is why the GPLv2 has been so effective, because yes we can actually stop people from violating it through legal means. Not having that leverage -- meaning what the "bad guys" are doing is perfectly legal according to the license -- is to have no recourse at all. How is that practical? It isn't. This is how Linus fails pragmatism.
His and your admonition to not make this an "us versus them thing" after your initial post just reminds me of two arguing groups of Church officials both rushing to pull out the "What would Jesus do?" bit first.
The enemies of Democracy are
I didn't even know what dpkg was until I looked it up after you mentioned it.
You don't need to know. It just works.
Do you know how Windows handles .msi files when you double-click them?
No, I don't know how .msi files work, just that they do although not always that well. And uninstaller routines, when software has one, don't work well either. That's one reason I think OSX is better, there's no registry or dependents. An installer, .dmg, may put .plist files in the preferences folder but that's about it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This distro has committed suicide.
I have no idea, I never heard of it. Since it's been more than 10 years since I've installed software on a Mac, things may of changed. But as of a few months ago I've heard about the only think you need to do in install software in OSX is create an app folder in the Application folder and drag the .dmg file there. Maybe I heard wrong, I'm going to find RSN as I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You probably heard (mostly) right. I have, and support, Linux WinXP/Vista and OSX machines here. Quite frankly, after a smallish learning curve, there's almost no difference transitioning between them.
Windows is the most troublesome over the long haul, mostly because of malware, but choosing between the other two comes down to taste. I prefer Linux for the customisability myself, but if you're struggling with the flexibility freedom buys you, a Mac's not a bad choice.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Windows is the most troublesome over the long haul, mostly because of malware, but choosing between the other two comes down to taste. I prefer Linux for the customisability myself, but if you're struggling with the flexibility freedom buys you, a Mac's not a bad choice.
I'm typing this on a Windows PC. I've also got three other computers. One is a PowerMac running Mac OS7, but it hasn't worked in about 1 1/2 years. Another is a dualboot DEC Alpha running NT4.0 and Redhat. The fourth one is a PC running Linspire Linux I bought about 10 months ago. I haven't used it much other than for storage, I added a second hdd of 750GB for the home directory. When I get a new MBP I'll setup the PC as a server and test machine but mainly use the MBP.
FalconShould there be a Law?