Guess you're not from the US! I'm British but have a few US friends. Certainly amongst my friends "could care less" is a standard saying and means exactly the same as "couldn't care less". I found it bizarre for a few weeks but I'm used to it now.
Maybe you are American and it's just slang from a certain city or state or something.... I dunno!
I'm quite impressed that your karma hasn't evaporated so far, and I assume that since you're worried about it then you must have some, which implies that you've been around on Slashdot for at least a little while without blowing your top..... impressive.
I too write software for pay, but only part-time, so I couldn't really call it a 'living'. I have also fallen foul of issues of linking to GPLed libraries, and it is pain.
I think that there is both room and need for different types of licenses in the software universe. I can't say I totally understand your complete opposition to GPL - I think you could benefit from separating the message and the speaker. After all, the GPL does not infringe on your right to sell software to the public, it is a choice on the part of the author of the original software and libraries to license under GPL and all that entails, and a choice on your part to link to GPLed code. Having said that, I do think all the core libraries should be licensed under LGPL or a less restrictive license.
I think RMS focuses too much on generic software, and in those terms what he says makes sense. A web browser, word processor or window manager would benefit from being freely available and getting community input. Much support is required for these software packages, so revenue streams are available for the developers. Customers will favour the original creators or acknowledged 'owners' of the package, or choose the company that best suits their needs, and pay a premium for well-packaged and supported software.
Bespoke software, on the other hand, is often easy-to-use (for an expert in that field), purpose designed, and its worth is locked up in the actual code, rather than in support and packaging. Typically there are a small number of companies competing for contracts in a given field, and will all be 'experts' and able to take competitors' code and adapt it to their needs very quickly. Companies need to 'own' their code, because it will often take several years of license fees to make a decent profit.
Well, perhaps its not that simplistic, but I do think that there is considerable difference between the generic/desktop market and the bespoke markets.
Couldn't agree more. I would happily pay $2-$2.50 to watch a movie from a licensed site in the US than risk giving my credit card details to an Iran-based company.
This is the stupidity of the whole thing - they are trying to close down markets rather than profit from them. I would prefer even Microsoft's attitude than this - at least with MS dominating a market there's one half-decent choice rather than 0 when the MPAA have finshed with their market.
I like your idea about academic publishing. If Red Hat simply want to stop someone else hijacking and patenting the idea, then why don't they write a paper and get it published in a journal (I'm sure there are journals about web server implementation, or general Internet technologies).
Since RH are going for the patent option, there's only two reasons I can see: either they want to stop _anyone_ from using their ideas, or they want to stop non-GPLed code from using their ideas. Let's hope its the latter.
It's not really though, is it? At the end of the day, all of these programs are written with separate front ends and back ends - that fact that I can get HTML e-mail displayed in another application via Internet Explorer without the IE GUI loading proves that it is already modular. The IE front end could be removed very easily. Things like the Media Player are already modular too - you can put a third-party application in and change the file associations and everything works just fine.
The fact is that you've swallowed the Microsoft BS. They want the industry to believe that Windows is one tight, integrated product - and that's the line they're using to justify their continued insistence that OEMs ship Windows with all of the MS extras intact - because they're part of the 'experience'.
Whilst I agree that it would be ridiculous to remove all of Windows' HTML rendering abilities, or ability to play various media files, there is no reason why these libraries cannot be left in but the front-ends that use them removed. That would open up competition in the browser market again, and allow markets for future products to emerge.
Also, please remember that MS is not being asked to do anything because "some customers and some OEMs may prefer it". The are being asked to do things because they have been found guilty in a court of law of abusing their monopoly powers. These abuses cost the jobs of people working for previously profitable software companies, and create higher prices for consumers by stifling competion in the market place, which would normally drive down prices.
Actually it's the States' job to look after the interests of consumers. There are many ways they can attempt to enforce the antitrust laws. How is forcing Micorsoft to create a modular version of Windows which the States' don't even know is practical in consumers best interests? Consumers like Windows because its well integrated.
It's in consumers' best interests because the MS practice of _insisting_ that their OS is pre-installed in a certain way makes it hard for retailers to choose other software, and drives competition out of the market place, stifles innovation and results in worse products at higher prices for the consumer.
These states believe that by forcing MS to release a version of Windows _without_ 'middleware' _as well as_ a version with all the junk that you believe "consumers want" they can rectify the situation. It's not that integrated Windows will not be available, but it will be possible to have Windows without all the crud that it is normally bundled with, if you want to choose that.
Of course parts of the OS require a HTML renderer, but that doesn't mean Internet Explorer needs to be thrust in everyone's face. Before HTML, Rich Text Format displays were found all over Windows, but that didn't mean you had to have Word installed for windows to work. There is a big difference between Internet Explorer the browser and the IE rendering engine - there is no reason why the two cannot be separated.
HP and Compaq are historically two of Dell's biggest competitors in the business PC market. One of the largest revenue streams for HP and hence the new HPQ is print cartridges. If Dell can market their own cartridges or printer/cartridge combination, they can erode HP's market share and make the new HPQ less effective.
It would be a good strategic move for Dell, even if they have to lower thier profit margins for a while by bundling a more expensive printer with their systems.
Can the same be said about productivity applications? Is there a free/open-source alternative to an advanced vector graphics editor (like Adobe Illustrator or Macromedia FreeHand)? There are many areas where free software is of too low quality or simply doesn't exist. BTW, I believe this is due to objective reasons and unlikely to change soon. What if Peruvian governmental employees will really need such software to have their work done?
Although I haven't read the bill, the letter implies quite strongly that it will be backed-up by a well thought-out plan for transition to free software. It specifically refers to not wanting to repeat the mistakes made in Mexico. Given the excellent quality of the response, I would tend to believe that they are more than capable of creating a water-tight upgrade path, being prepared to accept the use of non-free software where it is necessary.
On a more trivial level, have you tried the Vector drawing tool included with Star/Open Office? It's not quite Freehand, but it's very good.
So it's bad. But if Adobe wins.... Flash could slowly wither and die.
OR.... they could quickly release a new version where the dialog boxes do not behave like the Adobe ones....
This has been said about a million times already, but Adobe are not claiming patent on tabbed dialogs, only on the novel idea of being able to move a tab from one palette to another, or even drop it out on its own.
Clearly you've never stopped by the side of the road on a long drive to have a drink and a rest. Our little car barely has enough dash space to stand a cup on, and we seem to manage to spill drinks with alarming regularity.
I don't know if I'm missing something here, but is there anything that MS can do about the following sequence of events:-
Developer with access to the source code writes a paraphrased or pseudo-code representation of a key algorithm or data structure.
Developer posts their representation to a NG anonymously, using a cyber cafe or open-access computer somewhere so they can't be traced.
OSS developer downloads the representation and writes their own implementation.
Now, I realise that step 1 is agains the contract terms, but I could realistically see a situation where a developer working in a software company could take a photocopy/ burn a CD of the source without having ageed to the license themselves; or to put it another way, if the code gets distributed widely enough for it to get close to increasing competition in the OS and apps market then it will be on a lot of desks in a lot of companies with lots of margin for error in terms of who gets to see it.
My questions are:
Would MS have grounds for prosecuting the OSS developer for basing their SW on code that they knew/ suspected came from an unauthorised disclosure of the source? Or would it simply be the developer in step 1who could be prosecuted.
If the source become widely distributed (verbatim or otherwise) would the 'trade secret' (or lack of) thingy come into play, meaning that anyone involved in computing above a novice level could be expected to know that particular algorithm or data structure, and it therefore not legally be considered 'secret' anymore
If this was the case, would everyone have to stop writing open-source software, or would the reverse be true, that MS would no longer be able to enforce their 'IP rights'?
When I'm debugging Javascript in IE, I turn on the features that alert on every script error, and make sure I get _no_ errors, even though most users will have that turned off. Perhaps Mozilla should have a feature where developers can enable an option to show all HTML errors??
For a laught, try browsing www.microsoft.com or www.msn.com with IE3. That throws up tons of errors! (And you need to do this occasionally when setting up an NT4 box..).
As far as hiding the virus through a likely hidden extension, shouldn't you notice that a) the icon is horribly wrong (huge visual cue) and that b) the.txt is showing when it shouldn't?
I should certainly notice, yes. But an inexperienced user who uses maybe three or four different machines, all configured differently, may not realise that there shouldn't be an extension, or realise that the icon is for an exacutable. (Or an activeX or javascript as is often the case).
So that does make a case for some metadata outside of the file extension, namely 'it is safe to exectute this file'. Perhaps that should always be set to FALSE when a file is copied from removeable media or an e-mail?
Also, users are used to the concept of extensions. MS is very much aware of this.
So aware that the 'hide file extension for known file types' option in Explorer is hidden by default in every release of Windows since 98 AFAIK. No, I would argue that MS are keen to get rid of this idea, and I fully support that too.
Different OSs and differently configured Windows boxes handle file extensions very differently. I personally like to enable file extensions on the Windows boxes that I administer to avoid the classic trick of executable hiding, e.g. 'mynewvirus.txt.exe'.
This is still a half-way house though - it would be much better if the GUI transparently 'knew' which applications could be open a particular file, and which would be the user's preference. As there is a general shift towards xml files, this will be even more important because some apps will be able to parse parts of an xml file etc. so something more finely grained than a file extension name is really needed. Plus we're running out of decent names!
Re:User input could solve problems
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 2, Funny
What I am extrapolating is a system of organised whining, nothing like slashdot at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Call me crazy, but I reckon the Mozilla 1.0 looks much better. Maybe it's just the display on my laptop....?
Maybe you are American and it's just slang from a certain city or state or something.... I dunno!
It depends.... I reckon that there are some great companies out there that would jump at the chance to hire people with that sort of attitude.
Hey.... did you hear that Elvis is missing?
I too write software for pay, but only part-time, so I couldn't really call it a 'living'. I have also fallen foul of issues of linking to GPLed libraries, and it is pain.
I think that there is both room and need for different types of licenses in the software universe. I can't say I totally understand your complete opposition to GPL - I think you could benefit from separating the message and the speaker. After all, the GPL does not infringe on your right to sell software to the public, it is a choice on the part of the author of the original software and libraries to license under GPL and all that entails, and a choice on your part to link to GPLed code. Having said that, I do think all the core libraries should be licensed under LGPL or a less restrictive license.
I think RMS focuses too much on generic software, and in those terms what he says makes sense. A web browser, word processor or window manager would benefit from being freely available and getting community input. Much support is required for these software packages, so revenue streams are available for the developers. Customers will favour the original creators or acknowledged 'owners' of the package, or choose the company that best suits their needs, and pay a premium for well-packaged and supported software.
Bespoke software, on the other hand, is often easy-to-use (for an expert in that field), purpose designed, and its worth is locked up in the actual code, rather than in support and packaging. Typically there are a small number of companies competing for contracts in a given field, and will all be 'experts' and able to take competitors' code and adapt it to their needs very quickly. Companies need to 'own' their code, because it will often take several years of license fees to make a decent profit.
Well, perhaps its not that simplistic, but I do think that there is considerable difference between the generic/desktop market and the bespoke markets.
This is the stupidity of the whole thing - they are trying to close down markets rather than profit from them. I would prefer even Microsoft's attitude than this - at least with MS dominating a market there's one half-decent choice rather than 0 when the MPAA have finshed with their market.
The word is irrespective or regardless. Don't mix the two - then it's a dilbertism.
Easier that what? I've got a Sparcstation LX here running Debian, and its fantastic.
Since RH are going for the patent option, there's only two reasons I can see: either they want to stop _anyone_ from using their ideas, or they want to stop non-GPLed code from using their ideas. Let's hope its the latter.
I'm sure productivity will take a nose-dive when office staff are switched to Linux and can't change the background.
The fact is that you've swallowed the Microsoft BS. They want the industry to believe that Windows is one tight, integrated product - and that's the line they're using to justify their continued insistence that OEMs ship Windows with all of the MS extras intact - because they're part of the 'experience'.
Whilst I agree that it would be ridiculous to remove all of Windows' HTML rendering abilities, or ability to play various media files, there is no reason why these libraries cannot be left in but the front-ends that use them removed. That would open up competition in the browser market again, and allow markets for future products to emerge.
Also, please remember that MS is not being asked to do anything because "some customers and some OEMs may prefer it". The are being asked to do things because they have been found guilty in a court of law of abusing their monopoly powers. These abuses cost the jobs of people working for previously profitable software companies, and create higher prices for consumers by stifling competion in the market place, which would normally drive down prices.
It's in consumers' best interests because the MS practice of _insisting_ that their OS is pre-installed in a certain way makes it hard for retailers to choose other software, and drives competition out of the market place, stifles innovation and results in worse products at higher prices for the consumer.
These states believe that by forcing MS to release a version of Windows _without_ 'middleware' _as well as_ a version with all the junk that you believe "consumers want" they can rectify the situation. It's not that integrated Windows will not be available, but it will be possible to have Windows without all the crud that it is normally bundled with, if you want to choose that.
Of course parts of the OS require a HTML renderer, but that doesn't mean Internet Explorer needs to be thrust in everyone's face. Before HTML, Rich Text Format displays were found all over Windows, but that didn't mean you had to have Word installed for windows to work. There is a big difference between Internet Explorer the browser and the IE rendering engine - there is no reason why the two cannot be separated.
You have the honour of my .sig, sir.
HP and Compaq are historically two of Dell's biggest competitors in the business PC market. One of the largest revenue streams for HP and hence the new HPQ is print cartridges. If Dell can market their own cartridges or printer/cartridge combination, they can erode HP's market share and make the new HPQ less effective.
It would be a good strategic move for Dell, even if they have to lower thier profit margins for a while by bundling a more expensive printer with their systems.
Although I haven't read the bill, the letter implies quite strongly that it will be backed-up by a well thought-out plan for transition to free software. It specifically refers to not wanting to repeat the mistakes made in Mexico. Given the excellent quality of the response, I would tend to believe that they are more than capable of creating a water-tight upgrade path, being prepared to accept the use of non-free software where it is necessary.
On a more trivial level, have you tried the Vector drawing tool included with Star/Open Office? It's not quite Freehand, but it's very good.
OR.... they could quickly release a new version where the dialog boxes do not behave like the Adobe ones....
This has been said about a million times already, but Adobe are not claiming patent on tabbed dialogs, only on the novel idea of being able to move a tab from one palette to another, or even drop it out on its own.
Hail the cupholders!!
Ximian... Simian means monkey!
Perhaps it's done in log space, so that all those pre 1.0 packages become -ve numbers?
- Developer with access to the source code writes a paraphrased or pseudo-code representation of a key algorithm or data structure.
- Developer posts their representation to a NG anonymously, using a cyber cafe or open-access computer somewhere so they can't be traced.
- OSS developer downloads the representation and writes their own implementation.
Now, I realise that step 1 is agains the contract terms, but I could realistically see a situation where a developer working in a software company could take a photocopy/ burn a CD of the source without having ageed to the license themselves; or to put it another way, if the code gets distributed widely enough for it to get close to increasing competition in the OS and apps market then it will be on a lot of desks in a lot of companies with lots of margin for error in terms of who gets to see it.My questions are:
When I'm debugging Javascript in IE, I turn on the features that alert on every script error, and make sure I get _no_ errors, even though most users will have that turned off. Perhaps Mozilla should have a feature where developers can enable an option to show all HTML errors??
For a laught, try browsing www.microsoft.com or www.msn.com with IE3. That throws up tons of errors! (And you need to do this occasionally when setting up an NT4 box..).
I should certainly notice, yes. But an inexperienced user who uses maybe three or four different machines, all configured differently, may not realise that there shouldn't be an extension, or realise that the icon is for an exacutable. (Or an activeX or javascript as is often the case).
So that does make a case for some metadata outside of the file extension, namely 'it is safe to exectute this file'. Perhaps that should always be set to FALSE when a file is copied from removeable media or an e-mail?
Sorry - I meant that the 'hide file extension for known file types' is enabled in all versions of Windows since 98.
So aware that the 'hide file extension for known file types' option in Explorer is hidden by default in every release of Windows since 98 AFAIK. No, I would argue that MS are keen to get rid of this idea, and I fully support that too.
Different OSs and differently configured Windows boxes handle file extensions very differently. I personally like to enable file extensions on the Windows boxes that I administer to avoid the classic trick of executable hiding, e.g. 'mynewvirus.txt.exe'.
This is still a half-way house though - it would be much better if the GUI transparently 'knew' which applications could be open a particular file, and which would be the user's preference. As there is a general shift towards xml files, this will be even more important because some apps will be able to parse parts of an xml file etc. so something more finely grained than a file extension name is really needed. Plus we're running out of decent names!
*giggle*
Couldn't resist.