Why would anybody ask how to install winzip on a Linux box? Nobody I know of installed winzip on an XP box. Why? Because when they clicked on a.zip file, it opened, so they never got to the point where they thought "Oh, I should install winzip". The same goes for Linux, if the need never appears, the desire won't either.
So you want only one installation file format, only one window manager, and the ability to run windows apps? What would be the point then of running Linux at all?
Now I have the added benefit of being able to attach an external monitor and have it work immediately, without restarting X or whatever (which as far as I know is a feature not supported by any distribution of Linux.) Support for this and more has been added to X.org 7.3, which will be included in Ubuntu 7.10 (betas are already available, grab a LiveCD and try it out).
I'm thinking they're gonna say the sound card might use up too much electricity so it scales back the network card's performance just in case lol. This was probably meant as a joke, but their explanation wasn't too far off. Here's their claim:
But as you know, the drivers involved in both activities run at extremely high priority. As a result, the network driver can cause media playback to degrade. So basically they _are_ saying the sound card uses too much electricity (and/or CPU time) and so they have to reduce the network card's priority.
Sounds like an ideal solution rofl I thought it was about as simple as anything could be, what more do you want? What application platforms have an easier deployment than that?
Oracle, if I recall correctly, ships their own self-contained JRE with their own modifications. You should only upgrade Oracle's JRE with an updated JRE from Oracle, because their JRE isn't 'vanilla' Java. I know for a fact that you can ship your app with a self-contained JRE without screwing up any other JRE's on a box, and without those JRE's screwing up your app. If Oracle screwed up their own install, that's their problem. They could have just as easily screwed it up with DLL's as they did with JRE's.
Java is Sun's loss-leader. Java brings users to Solaris and Sparc like nothing else has, so it's not surprising that Sun wants "Java" to be used as much and as widely as possible.
If you're a sysadmin pushing a Java install over your corporate network, why bother with a UI install at all? Just zip or tar the Java files, copy, unpack, and setup environment variables. What's so hard about that?
Um, user's don't need to know or care about that. If I write a Java application and target the 1.4 JVM, it will run on the 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 JVM's. If I provide a launchable.jar file, the user just has to double-click it to run my application, just like they would a.exe file.
That is not what is happening here. In this case, the limitation isn't on how many items a coupon can be redeemed on, but on how many copies of the coupon you are allowed to reproduce, which is why they are treating it as infringement of copyright and not fraud.
If I gave you a PDF file of my new novel, and authorized you to print 2 copies of it, and you go and print 3 copies, you have infringed on my copyright (fair-use not withstanding). If I add DRM to that PDF file to prevent you from printing it more than twice, and you circumvent that DRM, then you have violated the DMCA.
Now here is the kicker: If you circumvent the DRM but still only print 2 copies, then you are innocent of copyright infringement but still in violation of the DMCA.
Coupons.com has a program that allows you to print their coupons (1) This program itself limits the number of coupons you can print (2a) This guy found a way to circumvent that limit (2b) Which he distributed on the internet (3) Which goes against the intentions and authorization of the owner (4) Which allows users to make more than the 2 copies of the coupons the copyright owner has authorized (5) Which is advertised explicitly for the purpose of creating more than the authorized number of coupons (6)
Which of the elements (1) through (6) requires a violation of copyright? (5) comes the closest, and it only requires that the circumvention _facilitates_ infringement, which is clearly the case here. I can see the defendant arguing that (1) is not met because coupons aren't given copyright protection, or more likely that (4) is not established because the fair use clause gives users the authorization, even if the owner of the copyright did not. Either way, I think he's got a tough case to make.
If I reprint coupons after routine hard drive reformats (say, for reasons of testing software) does the DMCA count this as a violation? No, because the act was for purposes other than circumventing copy protection, the circumvention was an unintended side-effect caused by bad design in the copy protection software.
Does the DMCA prevent me from pointing out that this is fundamentally broken and that reformatting removes the restrictions? Possibly. This specific case may answer that question.
If there are not notices which say you can only print the coupon twice, then isn't everything functioning within designed parameters? Aren't they giving me permission to print it again and again? It is my understanding that user's are informed that they are limited to 2 coupons per user. Coupons.com even created a technological method for black-listing users who print and use more than 2 coupons. It was this mechanism that was circumvented by the defendant, and it is that circumvention (and distributing a program to accomplish it) that he is being charged with, not printing more than 2 coupons. However, this doesn't sound like a copyright protection mechanism, but rather a fraud prevention mechanism, so the DMCA may not actually cover it.
I haven't seen that, do you have a link or a reference? As far as I know it is not a violation of copyright, because archives fall under fair use protection, but the circumvention of DVD encryption, even for otherwise legal purposes, is itself still illegal.
I agree with you. However, though IANAL, I have not yet seen case law defining circumvention device or "effectively controls." If you can point me to one, I would be glad to admit we are talking about something more than untested theories. From the US Code, title 17 (Copyright) chapter 12:
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anybody ask how to install winzip on a Linux box? Nobody I know of installed winzip on an XP box. Why? Because when they clicked on a .zip file, it opened, so they never got to the point where they thought "Oh, I should install winzip". The same goes for Linux, if the need never appears, the desire won't either.
So you want only one installation file format, only one window manager, and the ability to run windows apps? What would be the point then of running Linux at all?
If you do graphics all day, why are you running Vista?
Unless that ancient JRE is Microsoft's, then I would question why your Java app can't run on a newer JRE.
What backward compatibility issues have Java had? I have yet to encounter any personally, but that's not to say they don't exist.
Does anybody know why Oracle ships with 2 of it's own JREs?
Oracle, if I recall correctly, ships their own self-contained JRE with their own modifications. You should only upgrade Oracle's JRE with an updated JRE from Oracle, because their JRE isn't 'vanilla' Java. I know for a fact that you can ship your app with a self-contained JRE without screwing up any other JRE's on a box, and without those JRE's screwing up your app. If Oracle screwed up their own install, that's their problem. They could have just as easily screwed it up with DLL's as they did with JRE's.
An example? Maybe I just don't run crapware.
Wow, you should copyright that pic, then sue anybody who every displays even a portion of it without your approval.
Java is Sun's loss-leader. Java brings users to Solaris and Sparc like nothing else has, so it's not surprising that Sun wants "Java" to be used as much and as widely as possible.
Fresh out of college, most kids would kill for $40/hr. Heck, many veteran programs don't make $40/hr. What does the average VB coder make anyway?
If you're a sysadmin pushing a Java install over your corporate network, why bother with a UI install at all? Just zip or tar the Java files, copy, unpack, and setup environment variables. What's so hard about that?
Um, user's don't need to know or care about that. If I write a Java application and target the 1.4 JVM, it will run on the 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 JVM's. If I provide a launchable .jar file, the user just has to double-click it to run my application, just like they would a .exe file.
That is not what is happening here. In this case, the limitation isn't on how many items a coupon can be redeemed on, but on how many copies of the coupon you are allowed to reproduce, which is why they are treating it as infringement of copyright and not fraud.
If I gave you a PDF file of my new novel, and authorized you to print 2 copies of it, and you go and print 3 copies, you have infringed on my copyright (fair-use not withstanding). If I add DRM to that PDF file to prevent you from printing it more than twice, and you circumvent that DRM, then you have violated the DMCA.
Now here is the kicker: If you circumvent the DRM but still only print 2 copies, then you are innocent of copyright infringement but still in violation of the DMCA.
Coupons.com has a program that allows you to print their coupons (1)
This program itself limits the number of coupons you can print (2a)
This guy found a way to circumvent that limit (2b)
Which he distributed on the internet (3)
Which goes against the intentions and authorization of the owner (4)
Which allows users to make more than the 2 copies of the coupons the copyright owner has authorized (5)
Which is advertised explicitly for the purpose of creating more than the authorized number of coupons (6)
Which of the elements (1) through (6) requires a violation of copyright? (5) comes the closest, and it only requires that the circumvention _facilitates_ infringement, which is clearly the case here. I can see the defendant arguing that (1) is not met because coupons aren't given copyright protection, or more likely that (4) is not established because the fair use clause gives users the authorization, even if the owner of the copyright did not. Either way, I think he's got a tough case to make.
I haven't seen that, do you have a link or a reference? As far as I know it is not a violation of copyright, because archives fall under fair use protection, but the circumvention of DVD encryption, even for otherwise legal purposes, is itself still illegal.
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.