Bob's still an authorised agent acting on the company's behalf. If he loses it after he's signed for it, well, that's his problem (and the company's). They can't claim it was lost in the post or something.
Imagine you buy something online, and the package is sent to your home address and requires signing for. You're not home, so your mother signs on your behalf. Then you try to sue the company you bought it from saying you never received it. They've got proof it was signed for, and the only possible defence is if you can show the signature wasn't from someone who lived at your address (maybe someone was robbing the house, and signed for the package while they were at it). But in that case, you'd be trying to claim the loss on insurance or something, because there's evidence it was actually delivered to you (or to an agent acting on your behalf).
Linux has priced its product at ZERO, and yet MS dominates.
MS dominated well before Linux existed, at least before it existed in a consumable desktop form. This resulted in a lot of software only being available for Windows, which raises the barrier to entry for any other OS well beyond its RRP.
Windows is a far more advanced and richly-featured OS than Linux
Are you referring to anything in particular? The only real benefits of the Microsoft ecosystem over Linux that I see are:
the ease of administration Active Directory brings; as well as across-the-board "Windows Integrated Authentication" / Kerberos support. You can do the same thing in Linux, but it takes a lot more work to set it up. AD "just works", and is pretty robust. The only things that annoy me about it are a) minimum replication interval of 15 mins between sites and b) the complete and utter failure for Windows to cope with the loss of a DC until you reboot.
Exchange/Outlook for collaboration. This combines very well with AD.
Business-critical applications, e.g. our records management software, our purchase order system, and so on.
For home users, they're pretty close in terms of feature parity. But that's largely irrelevant, because it's businesses that drive the large-scale adoption of operating systems in homes. Most people want to use whatever they use at work, or failing that, whatever their local free tech support (kids, neighbours, whatever) happen to know.
Extracted the zip to a directory and let OfficeScan (8.0, Scan engine v8.500.1002, virus pattern 4.641.00) scan and quarantine all viruses. These files remained:
I'm intending to run our install of Trend over the sample viruses to see how it fares, but I guess lots of other people have the same idea. Currently downloading at 1.4 kB/sec, 1 hr 33 mins to go! (The file is 7.8 megs.)
Maybe you've just been lucky to work in companies that actually have a clue. Most don't, especially about technology. Or perhaps I've just been unlucky. As far as I've seen most people - and businesses - pay about as much attention to software licenses and EULAs as they do to the terms they're agreeing to when they buy a toaster. Unless software is their core business, it's just seen as a necessary but uninteresting expense. Most EULAs you don't even see until you've bought the software, anyway; and if you've bought it, you've obviously deemed it to be required for your business, so it's pretty unlikely that anything in there is going to make you change your mind about using it.
Anyway, your whole point is that the GPL is easy to understand. Unquestionably. I'm not arguing that. My point is that most businesses don't want to read the GPL, because they don't want to change how they do things, and the FUD about "viral licenses" and how Free Software is going to make you have to divulge all your secrets to your competitors plays into that desire.
This is what I meant by people being comfortable with paying for software; it's simply easier than trying to think about it in a different way. Sure, if a business decides it would like to use open source software they can easily determine that it's safe to do so, but most of the decision makers want to keep the status quo. They may complain about licensing costs and all the bugs in Microsoft software or whatever, but if you suggest using free software instead they come up with all sorts of excuses, including misinformation about the repercussions of the license; as well issues like compatibility, staff training costs, and so on.
The funny thing is, free software isn't fundamentally different from commercial software. I guess more and more are realising that, but I think it's still very much perceived as a fringe, hobbiest thing that's not suitable for business use, and only hippies would suggest it.
His comment about many businesses being unsure whether it's safe to use open software was spot on. You might not like it, but a lot of people are confused about what it means -- likely this is, at least in part, due to FUD from various companies which would prefer to keep people away from open source. It's also just because it's a bit different: most businesses are very used to -- and very comfortable with -- simply paying for software. So, if faced with some uncertainty about using free software, or buying some commercial software, they'll just buy it and be done with it. Yes, there's plenty of businesses who won't bother reading the license and trying to understand how it will actually effect them, if there's an easier alternative.
You really ought to work on your comprehension skills; or perhaps simply take a deep breath and relax before reading slashdot, because not everybody is out to undermine you. It was quite clear that he was discussing how businesses who aren't across the GPL and its actual meaning have misconceptions about what it may mean to them. And spending money is often far, far easier than doing even a tiny bit of homework.
Video cards yes, because who else needs them? But I think faster hard drives and faster memory trickle down to the consumer / gamer level from the higher-end users. How many 15k RPM disc drives are produced for consumer systems? They've been standard fair in server-grade storage systems for a long, long time. Admittedly most of our server drives are 10k RPM, but that's still faster than most consumer drives.
Memory, maybe. I'm not too sure about that; faster memory benefits everyone, but is probably more useful to gamers than anyone else. But it's not as if these advancements wouldn't occur if it weren't for gamers. Probably it wouldn't advance at the same pace at the desktop level, but that's only because everyone else views it as a waste of money... because it is.
As another poster mentioned, GCC has turned into a vehicle to further already-established agendas, and that's what's killing meaningful discussions on the subject.
Wow, even in a discussion about 8 million year old bacteria we still have to put up with people discussing GPLv3!
I thought TPB was able to operate because the mere act of tracking torrents and providing.torrent files wasn't illegal there (Sweden?) -- but they still have copyright laws. There might also be a wrinkle that it's okay to download copywritten materials, but not to distribute it. Okay, I'm a bit hazy, but I'm sure someone else will clarify.
Also, the P's in P2P mean that laws regarding distribution in the location you live in still apply, regardless of how legal it may be in another location.
The case of collaborating with someone else on a document is very different than merely wanting them to be able to read it. Presumably you will have established beforehand what document format you're going to use, even if only because you happen to know what word processing software they use.
Prove your "fiscal conservative" bona fides by spending that tax money like it's going out of style!
We already did that. We launched our new websites using MOSS 2007. Over $50,000 USD to license an internet-facing server. Not to mention SQL Server licensing and Windows licensing.
Glorified freakin' brochure site, too. Smart decision, that one. Probably be cheaper to write our own CMS from scratch.
I think the size limit is 300 KB for MMS. At least, that's what my Nokia phone told me. That was when I worked out that it doesn't automatically resize pictures you're adding to an MMS, which I assumed it was doing.
The post which originally claimed it was "hypocritical" only mentioned Linux, and not FOSS. It's perfectly possible for someone to like and use Linux, and not care about the Free software philosophy; in the same way it's perfectly possible for someone to use Firefox on Windows because they prefer it to MSIE or Opera, and don't care that it's Free. There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. It's also not hypocritical to prefer or even "believe in" Free software, but be willing to use proprietary software when it's the best choice (that'd be pragmatism). It's not even hypocritical to do that, while still hoping for (or helping to create) a Free alternative to the proprietary software. But, you already know that (unless you actually don't have any idea what the word hypocritical means).
Secondly, it isn't necessarily illegal to make an "emulator" (which WINE isn't, technically, although it's used like an emulator would be) for the Win32 API. After all, there is a commercial entity (Cedega or something?) involved in WINE, and they haven't been sued into oblivion; presumably, if they were actually doing something illegal, they would have been shut down. I mention this as a commercial example because it's feasible some companies wouldn't bother trying to stop technically illegal activities carried out by free software people, on the grounds of it being too difficult a target. Businesses are another matter.
Even your apparent claim that the PC games market wouldn't exist if it weren't for Windows is absolute bunk. Games existed before Windows and on various platforms. If the PC OS market wasn't so heavily dominated by Microsoft, but instead had fairly even splits between 3 or 4 different platforms, then PC games would routinely be designed cross-platform and released across all major platforms. Not doing so would be stupid. There's nothing magical about Windows which allows it to run games. It's purely market share that results in developers ignoring other PC platforms, just like some developers choose to develop for a specific console. Market shares are subject to change.
Overall, I'd rate your troll about a 7. Not a bad effort at all.
Moreover, where do you draw the line between it being a "Windows" game or a "Linux" game if it can run on Linux? Java is considered cross-platform, because the same binaries can run under a JVM on different platforms. So, why wouldn't WINE be treated the same - a kind of VM platform for Win32 applications?
Thanks, very useful info. I might look into setting that up. I do use Postfix by the way, so it all makes perfect sense. We currently use greylisting across the board, which is pretty effective at stopping the zombies but the delays in receiving emails are sometimes irritating. It would be interesting to see if only greylisting Windows senders is still effective.
You said it yourself: giving up your spare CPU cycles. i.e. something you're not even using! Why would you have a sad over that? It's not as if you can horde them in a box and use them later when you need some extra grunt.
Your experiences don't overrule other people's experiences. I'm glad GRUB works for you, and when it worked for me I liked it too - but I've had a lot of problems with it as well, and while it is quite powerful it's also quite complicated to use. At least it was when I tried it. You really seem to have to understand what the various stages of the bootloader are in order to use the "full featured command line", or to get it installed in any slightly non-"standard" environment.
I've had my perfectly working GRUB stop working after installing a new kernel, even though the installation is supposedly so easy and magical. I've never had LILO stop working with the same configuration file which was working before. While I have encountered difficulties getting LILO configured on some (slightly odd) systems, once it's set up it just seems to work. That hasn't been my experience with GRUB.
Now, my anecdote doesn't overrule yours, so I'm happy that you're happy with it. But the idea of using GRUB on a remote system I don't have console access on scares the bejeezus out of me. Then again, I'm one of those people who consistently experienced filesystem corruption with ReiserFS, while other people swear by it. YMMV.
Like a flakey filesystem, when the bootloader craps itself for no apparent reason after a routine upgrade, it tends to be very inconvenient and disconcerting. Thus, I probably treat it a bit more harshly than it deserves. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that. And LILO works for my needs, so learning the nuances of GRUB just doesn't have a sufficient payoff for me.
It would be incredibly difficult for a thinking, self-aware, intelligent being to create an RCS which isn't leaps and bounds ahead of VSS. Not saying that Microsoft couldn't do it -- if anyone can, it's them -- but it would be really stretching their capabilities to produce something that bad in 2007.
Slashdot Mirror
Bob's still an authorised agent acting on the company's behalf. If he loses it after he's signed for it, well, that's his problem (and the company's). They can't claim it was lost in the post or something.
Imagine you buy something online, and the package is sent to your home address and requires signing for. You're not home, so your mother signs on your behalf. Then you try to sue the company you bought it from saying you never received it. They've got proof it was signed for, and the only possible defence is if you can show the signature wasn't from someone who lived at your address (maybe someone was robbing the house, and signed for the package while they were at it). But in that case, you'd be trying to claim the loss on insurance or something, because there's evidence it was actually delivered to you (or to an agent acting on your behalf).
We need a -1, Didn't get it mod. Perhaps it could just be "-1, Whoosh".
"Not Something Accessible", perhaps?
Okay, never mind, I fixed the link... shouldn't have. Thanks for the warning.
MS dominated well before Linux existed, at least before it existed in a consumable desktop form. This resulted in a lot of software only being available for Windows, which raises the barrier to entry for any other OS well beyond its RRP.
Windows is a far more advanced and richly-featured OS than LinuxAre you referring to anything in particular? The only real benefits of the Microsoft ecosystem over Linux that I see are:
For home users, they're pretty close in terms of feature parity. But that's largely irrelevant, because it's businesses that drive the large-scale adoption of operating systems in homes. Most people want to use whatever they use at work, or failing that, whatever their local free tech support (kids, neighbours, whatever) happen to know.
Extracted the zip to a directory and let OfficeScan (8.0, Scan engine v8.500.1002, virus pattern 4.641.00) scan and quarantine all viruses. These files remained:
111_xxx.com :01:24)
112_untangle1.zip
114_untanged22.zip-(07-08_08_01 -- empty file, not extracted, ends in
115_untangle3.zip
116_untangle4.zip
I'm intending to run our install of Trend over the sample viruses to see how it fares, but I guess lots of other people have the same idea. Currently downloading at 1.4 kB/sec, 1 hr 33 mins to go! (The file is 7.8 megs.)
Maybe you've just been lucky to work in companies that actually have a clue. Most don't, especially about technology. Or perhaps I've just been unlucky. As far as I've seen most people - and businesses - pay about as much attention to software licenses and EULAs as they do to the terms they're agreeing to when they buy a toaster. Unless software is their core business, it's just seen as a necessary but uninteresting expense. Most EULAs you don't even see until you've bought the software, anyway; and if you've bought it, you've obviously deemed it to be required for your business, so it's pretty unlikely that anything in there is going to make you change your mind about using it.
Anyway, your whole point is that the GPL is easy to understand. Unquestionably. I'm not arguing that. My point is that most businesses don't want to read the GPL, because they don't want to change how they do things, and the FUD about "viral licenses" and how Free Software is going to make you have to divulge all your secrets to your competitors plays into that desire.
This is what I meant by people being comfortable with paying for software; it's simply easier than trying to think about it in a different way. Sure, if a business decides it would like to use open source software they can easily determine that it's safe to do so, but most of the decision makers want to keep the status quo. They may complain about licensing costs and all the bugs in Microsoft software or whatever, but if you suggest using free software instead they come up with all sorts of excuses, including misinformation about the repercussions of the license; as well issues like compatibility, staff training costs, and so on.
The funny thing is, free software isn't fundamentally different from commercial software. I guess more and more are realising that, but I think it's still very much perceived as a fringe, hobbiest thing that's not suitable for business use, and only hippies would suggest it.
His comment about many businesses being unsure whether it's safe to use open software was spot on. You might not like it, but a lot of people are confused about what it means -- likely this is, at least in part, due to FUD from various companies which would prefer to keep people away from open source. It's also just because it's a bit different: most businesses are very used to -- and very comfortable with -- simply paying for software. So, if faced with some uncertainty about using free software, or buying some commercial software, they'll just buy it and be done with it. Yes, there's plenty of businesses who won't bother reading the license and trying to understand how it will actually effect them, if there's an easier alternative.
You really ought to work on your comprehension skills; or perhaps simply take a deep breath and relax before reading slashdot, because not everybody is out to undermine you. It was quite clear that he was discussing how businesses who aren't across the GPL and its actual meaning have misconceptions about what it may mean to them. And spending money is often far, far easier than doing even a tiny bit of homework.
Video cards yes, because who else needs them? But I think faster hard drives and faster memory trickle down to the consumer / gamer level from the higher-end users. How many 15k RPM disc drives are produced for consumer systems? They've been standard fair in server-grade storage systems for a long, long time. Admittedly most of our server drives are 10k RPM, but that's still faster than most consumer drives.
Memory, maybe. I'm not too sure about that; faster memory benefits everyone, but is probably more useful to gamers than anyone else. But it's not as if these advancements wouldn't occur if it weren't for gamers. Probably it wouldn't advance at the same pace at the desktop level, but that's only because everyone else views it as a waste of money... because it is.
Wow, even in a discussion about 8 million year old bacteria we still have to put up with people discussing GPLv3!
I thought TPB was able to operate because the mere act of tracking torrents and providing .torrent files wasn't illegal there (Sweden?) -- but they still have copyright laws. There might also be a wrinkle that it's okay to download copywritten materials, but not to distribute it. Okay, I'm a bit hazy, but I'm sure someone else will clarify.
Also, the P's in P2P mean that laws regarding distribution in the location you live in still apply, regardless of how legal it may be in another location.
But... but... they're so shiny! You can't take my shiny!
He'd have a point if people didn't still make music "the old way". There's plenty of room for both methods to co-exist.
The case of collaborating with someone else on a document is very different than merely wanting them to be able to read it. Presumably you will have established beforehand what document format you're going to use, even if only because you happen to know what word processing software they use.
We already did that. We launched our new websites using MOSS 2007. Over $50,000 USD to license an internet-facing server. Not to mention SQL Server licensing and Windows licensing.
Glorified freakin' brochure site, too. Smart decision, that one. Probably be cheaper to write our own CMS from scratch.
It's not UNIX(TM).
I think the size limit is 300 KB for MMS. At least, that's what my Nokia phone told me. That was when I worked out that it doesn't automatically resize pictures you're adding to an MMS, which I assumed it was doing.
So yes, MMS isn't a substitute.
The post which originally claimed it was "hypocritical" only mentioned Linux, and not FOSS. It's perfectly possible for someone to like and use Linux, and not care about the Free software philosophy; in the same way it's perfectly possible for someone to use Firefox on Windows because they prefer it to MSIE or Opera, and don't care that it's Free. There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. It's also not hypocritical to prefer or even "believe in" Free software, but be willing to use proprietary software when it's the best choice (that'd be pragmatism). It's not even hypocritical to do that, while still hoping for (or helping to create) a Free alternative to the proprietary software. But, you already know that (unless you actually don't have any idea what the word hypocritical means).
Secondly, it isn't necessarily illegal to make an "emulator" (which WINE isn't, technically, although it's used like an emulator would be) for the Win32 API. After all, there is a commercial entity (Cedega or something?) involved in WINE, and they haven't been sued into oblivion; presumably, if they were actually doing something illegal, they would have been shut down. I mention this as a commercial example because it's feasible some companies wouldn't bother trying to stop technically illegal activities carried out by free software people, on the grounds of it being too difficult a target. Businesses are another matter.
Even your apparent claim that the PC games market wouldn't exist if it weren't for Windows is absolute bunk. Games existed before Windows and on various platforms. If the PC OS market wasn't so heavily dominated by Microsoft, but instead had fairly even splits between 3 or 4 different platforms, then PC games would routinely be designed cross-platform and released across all major platforms. Not doing so would be stupid. There's nothing magical about Windows which allows it to run games. It's purely market share that results in developers ignoring other PC platforms, just like some developers choose to develop for a specific console. Market shares are subject to change.
Overall, I'd rate your troll about a 7. Not a bad effort at all.
Moreover, where do you draw the line between it being a "Windows" game or a "Linux" game if it can run on Linux? Java is considered cross-platform, because the same binaries can run under a JVM on different platforms. So, why wouldn't WINE be treated the same - a kind of VM platform for Win32 applications?
Thanks, very useful info. I might look into setting that up. I do use Postfix by the way, so it all makes perfect sense. We currently use greylisting across the board, which is pretty effective at stopping the zombies but the delays in receiving emails are sometimes irritating. It would be interesting to see if only greylisting Windows senders is still effective.
What do you use to determine if the sender is a Windows box?
You said it yourself: giving up your spare CPU cycles. i.e. something you're not even using! Why would you have a sad over that? It's not as if you can horde them in a box and use them later when you need some extra grunt.
Your experiences don't overrule other people's experiences. I'm glad GRUB works for you, and when it worked for me I liked it too - but I've had a lot of problems with it as well, and while it is quite powerful it's also quite complicated to use. At least it was when I tried it. You really seem to have to understand what the various stages of the bootloader are in order to use the "full featured command line", or to get it installed in any slightly non-"standard" environment.
I've had my perfectly working GRUB stop working after installing a new kernel, even though the installation is supposedly so easy and magical. I've never had LILO stop working with the same configuration file which was working before. While I have encountered difficulties getting LILO configured on some (slightly odd) systems, once it's set up it just seems to work. That hasn't been my experience with GRUB.
Now, my anecdote doesn't overrule yours, so I'm happy that you're happy with it. But the idea of using GRUB on a remote system I don't have console access on scares the bejeezus out of me. Then again, I'm one of those people who consistently experienced filesystem corruption with ReiserFS, while other people swear by it. YMMV.
Like a flakey filesystem, when the bootloader craps itself for no apparent reason after a routine upgrade, it tends to be very inconvenient and disconcerting. Thus, I probably treat it a bit more harshly than it deserves. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that. And LILO works for my needs, so learning the nuances of GRUB just doesn't have a sufficient payoff for me.
Because it's fun!
It would be incredibly difficult for a thinking, self-aware, intelligent being to create an RCS which isn't leaps and bounds ahead of VSS. Not saying that Microsoft couldn't do it -- if anyone can, it's them -- but it would be really stretching their capabilities to produce something that bad in 2007.