"The problem with your argument is that no one has even tried to make something better. You jump on the Microsoft bandwagon every single time."
People have created tons of fantastic development platforms, are you kidding me?
I can name a few:
Hmm.. I think the original poster meant that nobody has tried to better Silverlight. You just jumped on the bandwagon. You're basically saying "if you can't beat them, join them", without first trying to beat them.
In case that was a little obscure, I'll elaborate by saying that 0xCC is the x86 single-byte opcode for the int3 instruction, to generate a CPU breakpoint interrupt.
I think you misunderstood me. Firstly, trialware is NOT free software - it's commercial software that can't be used freely.
OK, so it's possible to get F/OSS through "get programs online". But my point is that F/OSS is a feature of the Ubuntu system. Ubuntu is a product of the FOSS community, and so I consider the free software available to be part of that system.
Ubuntu pours millions of dollars into the development of this software. Their engineers improve it, integrate it with their system, and of course, release it back into the community.
With Vista, Microsoft have added a button to download free software from the Internet. This is free software that Microsoft didn't write, didn't contribute to, and have tried to destroy it in every possible way since its inception. Microsoft hates free software because it undermines their business model. Therefore I do not consider these applications to be a feature of Vista, just because they have provided a download link.
One thing I liked about Ubuntu was the way you could browse in the Add/Remove Applications list for free software hand-picked by the Ubuntu community. The closest thing in Vista is the Digital Locker feature, where you can purchase software online and download it in a protected fashion.
By the sound of it from the article, that's what you're getting in Vista - trialware crippled with DRM.
Are you telling me that OpenOffice, GIMP and Firefox are available through Microsoft's "Digital Locker"? If so I must say I'm surprised.
Nevertheless, I consider OpenOffice, GIMP and Firefox to be "features" of the Ubuntu operating system. Not only are all three of them installed by default, but they also come from the same community of developers as Ubuntu.
I do not consider these apps to be features of Vista, just because they're freely available and run on it. Microsoft has fought tooth and nail to destroy these programs (particularly OpenOffice and Firefox). Therefore I think it's quite offensive to the developers of these apps to be giving Vista points for having these programs run on it.
I'm not going to hit "Submit" till I'm done whining!
Firefox is a feature of Ubuntu. It is not a feature of Vista. Therefore you can't say "they're equal because you can run Firefox on both". Same goes for OpenOffice.
Evolution has trouble importing from Outlook Express. Microsoft Mail has equal trouble importing from Outlook Express. What this indicates to me is that Ubuntu is incompatible with Windows, while Windows is incompatible with itself.
On the flip side, I'm surprised the author gave a tie to multimedia support. Even I'd give Vista the win for this category (but at what cost?)
OK I'm done - lol. The author was pretty much giving a "tie" in every category. Anyway aside from my various complaints, I think it's pretty even-handed, and let's face it, it is quite good to have a clearly Windows-oriented author give Ubuntu a 50-50 against Microsoft's "latest and greatest".
One thing I liked about Ubuntu was the way you could browse in the Add/Remove Applications list for free software hand-picked by the Ubuntu community. The closest thing in Vista is the Digital Locker feature, where you can purchase software online and download it in a protected fashion. In addition, a number of free / trial programs are available through their system (such as the free version of AVG Anti-Virus).
The Winner: It's a tie.
Browsing and downloading tens of thousands of programs which are monetarily and philosophically free.
versus
Browsing and downloading a handful of programs, either for a price, or trialware, all crippled with DRM.
Check out this even-handed comparison of two very similar features:
You can also use this live-CD feature to perform system recovery to some extent. (Ubuntu 7.04 does have read/write support for NTFS partitions, although it doesn't support encrypted files or security groups.) The closest thing Vista has to something like this is the ability to install a full working version of the OS on a computer without a Vista license key, and to try it out for 30 days (extendable to 120).
In other words:
Ubuntu: Minimal - You can try the entire OS without installing or touching your hard drive in any way. Full - You can install the OS for free, perpetual and unrestricted.
Vista: Minimal - You can "try" the OS by installing it fully, but 30 days, if you're a software pirate. Full - You can pay for and install the OS, agree to a machiavellian license agreement, and run it for as long as Microsoft lets you without remotely disabling your system.
Why is it comparing Vista's 30 day no-activation period post-install to Ubuntu's LiveCD? It just serves to show the dramatic difference between the philosophies of the OSes, but tries very hard to make them look similar.
I have argued strongly and passionately against DRM. But hey, I'm all for a DRM that enables fair use. A DRM that prevents users from doing illegal activities, but which allows any and all legitimate use of media users have purchased.
The only problem is, it's a logical impossibility.
Less-restrictive DRM is actually worse, because it means that more people are "OK with it", while it still has the same fundamental problem of all DRM.
Well if as you say I got my facts wrong, at least the principle was right...:/
Actually they moved GFX parts (and more) _out_ of the kernel, that's why they had so much difficulty doing it. IOW, with DX10 a large part of the driver is in user mode.
That isn't what I've heard. Their excuse is that they're putting more into the kernel. If it's all running in usermode, why can't it run in XP usermode?
So.. yes it is a LOT of work to get DX10 running on a non-Vista system. That isn't the point under contention. The point is: did Microsoft have to tie it in so closely?
The answer is, of course not. Nobody "has to" write a graphics API inside a kernel. I think the real "if only Windows was more like Linux" is that Linux is layered. With Linux, you have the kernel, then on top of that, the X Windows system, then on to of that, the window manager, and on top of that, the OpenGL implementation.
Shoving the rendering engine, the web browser, the web server, etc, all in the kernel is a good way to accomplish two things:
Force people to upgrade to your new kernel, for "technical reasons beyond your control".
Ensure that if any of those components are compromised, the attacker can take down the whole system.
In other words, this strategy is my favourite example of Microsoft trading bad engineering practises to maintain their stranglehold on the industry - which is precisely why Windows is both a monopoly AND a terrible system.
Well there's a lot of talk as to wether MS/Novell violated GPLv2. Eben Moglen (The Free Software Foundation lawyer) went over it and determined that it was not in violation. I don't really understand how it isn't, but there you go.
It'll be irrelevant soon when GPLv3 comes out, MS/Novell will certainly be in violation of that and Novell will have no choice but to somehow get out of this deal, or stick with only GPLv2 software (which will be not a lot). I assume this all applies to Samsung too, though I haven't read about this latest case in any detail.
Unfortunatly, federal law makes schools -- including colleges -- "gun free zones".
Read: "Unarmed Victim Zones".
Try pulling that psycho bullshit in a Virginia mall, and that shooter's life would have ended a lot quicker, with a whole lot less innocent people injured.
That's probably true, but how's this for a suggestion: just don't sell god damned murder weapons to anyone.
ie. What's better than having a crazy person shoot other people and then get gunned down by someone with a firearm, is that nobody be allowed to own or purchase firearms at all.
The rest of the world doesn't need to wonder why the US has so many freaking massacres.
The real key here (with composite) is the sparkle for the masses. The people who see "The Wow Starts Now" ads for Vista and go, "ooh Vista's beautiful". Composite desktops in Linux are a "we've got the wow too!" I think it's very important to avoid being seen as the ugly duckling.
In this regard, wobbly windows serve their purpose;)
Excellent. The more we block untrustworthy sites, the better our students are protected from finding "misleading" or "unreliable" information.
I think it's very important that students in schools are only allowed to access 100% accurate information. That way, when they get out into the real world, they will trust everything they read and can be manipulated easily.
If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.
While I fully agree with your sentiment, I think comparing GPL violations to killing babies is a bit harsh;)
(Perhaps this is some of that British humour you were talking about)...
Hopefully they would make the price a bit more expensive, so that when you bought one in the US, the surplus went to funding the OLPC in other countries. (Or at least gave you that option).
But I don't think this laptop would really be the most productive environment for a working adult. It's designed for kids and it seeps this design in every aspect.
This is all sounding good (you seem to be quite an expert). So I'll just say: yes - but the system architecture does have a lot to do with the security model. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but IMHO, the Unix security model is far superior as an architecture than the Windows one, and that says something.
It isn't about merely "breaking the rules". The EULA is a set of terms defined entirely by the company, which I might add, may change at any time without notice, and has in the past. It is (not specifically the WoW EULA but EULAs in general) a contract with far-reaching and overly-generic terms.
The fact is, it isn't a case of "you broke the rules as defined in the EULA, we're terminating your service". It's actually a case that the EULA specifically gives the publisher, in this case, Blizzard, the right to terminate the contract at any time. This means they need to have no reason whatsoever, or they could just make up a reason on the spot.
Furthermore Blizzard use automated tools to detect when people "break their rules" and have been known to ban players falsely. Legally there is nothing the banned player can do but buy a new game, because the terms of the EULA state that Blizzard can ban whoever they want.
If Blizzard finds (your username) to be offensive or improper, it may, in its sole and absolute discretion (take certain remedies) and/or suspend or terminate your use of the Program.
(My emphasis). See the link above for the ridiculous naming rules. Maybe they are sensible enough, but realise that breaking these very loose rules (such as leetspeek or "GeneralTed") WOULD legally constitute breaking these terms.
certain acts... are considered serious violations of these Terms of Use (including) the following:... Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Program.
(My emphasis).
Blizzard reserves the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to change, modify, add to, supplement or delete any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement at any time.
BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE THE ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME WITH ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of this Terms of Use or the EULA.
(My emphasis). Worded another way, but with exactly equivalent semantics, Blizzard explicitly grant themselves the right to terminate your account for any reason at all whether it is in violation of these terms or not.
Blizzard may terminate this Agreement with or without notice by terminating your Account.
WHEN RUNNING, THE PROGRAM MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) AND/OR CPU PROCESSES
But as you say, if Blizzard decides to terminate my account, it's my fault and I deserve to lose my $80 plus $60 I paid for the expansion pack now bound to my account.
(I'm not an angry troll who got his account banned, I'm just an angry ex-customer who will not agree to blatantly immoral and all-powerful license agreements).
Maybe the end is good. But let's look at the ramifications here. Basically, we've agreed this is not a copyright violation. It is simply a violation of the EULA.
So in effect, this software company is allowed to dictate terms well beyond the normal legal means or they cancel the service. This is all well and good, except that the service is inextricably linked to a product. This situation is the root of all evil.
To elaborate, my gardener is well within his rights to say "if I find anything in your garden which I don't like, I will terminate this service". If we both agree on these terms, then yes, if I have some nasty critters or something in my garden and he finds them, he can walk away, and I'll have to find a new gardener. But the gardener is just a service, and that's all, it really doesn't cost me anything to find a new gardener.
World of Warcraft is a product and a service in one. The product itself costs the normal cost of a computer game, plus the cost of the expansion. THEN you pay a service on top of that. This in itself is morally wrong IMHO. But the fact that Blizzard cancelling the service in effect makes the product COMPLETELY USELESS means it really isn't right that they can dictate the terms of the service as freely as my gardener can.
That's basically like my gardener saying "I need you to buy me a $60 pair of shears, and then I'll charge you for doing your garden, BUT if I find anything I don't like in the garden, I'll keep the $60 and suspend your service (but you're more than welcome to buy me a new pair of shears and we'll start our arrangement again - in fact I'd quite like that)". If a gardener said that to you, you'd think he was a crook.
In summary: Providing a product and service rolled into one is wrong. Being able to terminate the service at any time but keep the revenue made from selling the now-useless product is oh so wrong.
Does this also mean if you can't trust your own users, they could be using root as well?
I understand that any one hole in a system means people can flow through. But I thought the point was that the ENTIRE system was designed from the ground up with this in mind, so that there are literally very few places to poke holes in (and those places are highly checked for security).
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much, except we don't get to vote in US elections...
Jolly good show!
Nice :)
In case that was a little obscure, I'll elaborate by saying that 0xCC is the x86 single-byte opcode for the int3 instruction, to generate a CPU breakpoint interrupt.
INT instruction (x86).
Interrupt 3, the generated interrupt.
Prior art: 1974.
What about Explorer, Control Panel, etc? Are they blaming that software too?
I think you misunderstood me. Firstly, trialware is NOT free software - it's commercial software that can't be used freely.
OK, so it's possible to get F/OSS through "get programs online". But my point is that F/OSS is a feature of the Ubuntu system. Ubuntu is a product of the FOSS community, and so I consider the free software available to be part of that system.
Ubuntu pours millions of dollars into the development of this software. Their engineers improve it, integrate it with their system, and of course, release it back into the community.
With Vista, Microsoft have added a button to download free software from the Internet. This is free software that Microsoft didn't write, didn't contribute to, and have tried to destroy it in every possible way since its inception. Microsoft hates free software because it undermines their business model. Therefore I do not consider these applications to be a feature of Vista, just because they have provided a download link.
Are you telling me that OpenOffice, GIMP and Firefox are available through Microsoft's "Digital Locker"? If so I must say I'm surprised.
Nevertheless, I consider OpenOffice, GIMP and Firefox to be "features" of the Ubuntu operating system. Not only are all three of them installed by default, but they also come from the same community of developers as Ubuntu.
I do not consider these apps to be features of Vista, just because they're freely available and run on it. Microsoft has fought tooth and nail to destroy these programs (particularly OpenOffice and Firefox). Therefore I think it's quite offensive to the developers of these apps to be giving Vista points for having these programs run on it.
It goes on ...
I'm not going to hit "Submit" till I'm done whining!
Firefox is a feature of Ubuntu. It is not a feature of Vista. Therefore you can't say "they're equal because you can run Firefox on both". Same goes for OpenOffice.
Evolution has trouble importing from Outlook Express. Microsoft Mail has equal trouble importing from Outlook Express. What this indicates to me is that Ubuntu is incompatible with Windows, while Windows is incompatible with itself.
On the flip side, I'm surprised the author gave a tie to multimedia support. Even I'd give Vista the win for this category (but at what cost?)
OK I'm done - lol. The author was pretty much giving a "tie" in every category. Anyway aside from my various complaints, I think it's pretty even-handed, and let's face it, it is quite good to have a clearly Windows-oriented author give Ubuntu a 50-50 against Microsoft's "latest and greatest".
versus
Browsing and downloading a handful of programs, either for a price, or trialware, all crippled with DRM.
IT'S A TIE!
In other words:
Ubuntu: Minimal - You can try the entire OS without installing or touching your hard drive in any way.
Full - You can install the OS for free, perpetual and unrestricted.
Vista: Minimal - You can "try" the OS by installing it fully, but 30 days, if you're a software pirate.
Full - You can pay for and install the OS, agree to a machiavellian license agreement, and run it for as long as Microsoft lets you without remotely disabling your system.
Why is it comparing Vista's 30 day no-activation period post-install to Ubuntu's LiveCD? It just serves to show the dramatic difference between the philosophies of the OSes, but tries very hard to make them look similar.
I have argued strongly and passionately against DRM. But hey, I'm all for a DRM that enables fair use. A DRM that prevents users from doing illegal activities, but which allows any and all legitimate use of media users have purchased.
The only problem is, it's a logical impossibility.
Less-restrictive DRM is actually worse, because it means that more people are "OK with it", while it still has the same fundamental problem of all DRM.
The answer is, of course not. Nobody "has to" write a graphics API inside a kernel. I think the real "if only Windows was more like Linux" is that Linux is layered. With Linux, you have the kernel, then on top of that, the X Windows system, then on to of that, the window manager, and on top of that, the OpenGL implementation.
Shoving the rendering engine, the web browser, the web server, etc, all in the kernel is a good way to accomplish two things:
- Force people to upgrade to your new kernel, for "technical reasons beyond your control".
- Ensure that if any of those components are compromised, the attacker can take down the whole system.
In other words, this strategy is my favourite example of Microsoft trading bad engineering practises to maintain their stranglehold on the industry - which is precisely why Windows is both a monopoly AND a terrible system.Well there's a lot of talk as to wether MS/Novell violated GPLv2. Eben Moglen (The Free Software Foundation lawyer) went over it and determined that it was not in violation. I don't really understand how it isn't, but there you go.
It'll be irrelevant soon when GPLv3 comes out, MS/Novell will certainly be in violation of that and Novell will have no choice but to somehow get out of this deal, or stick with only GPLv2 software (which will be not a lot). I assume this all applies to Samsung too, though I haven't read about this latest case in any detail.
Thanks for those links. +5 Informative indeed.
ie. What's better than having a crazy person shoot other people and then get gunned down by someone with a firearm, is that nobody be allowed to own or purchase firearms at all.
The rest of the world doesn't need to wonder why the US has so many freaking massacres.
Why would Microsoft support Linux?
:O
Hmm... I don't know. Five months ago they signed a deal with Novell in the interest of enhancing interoperability between Linux and Windows. Remember that?
Are you telling me that was all a sham???
The real key here (with composite) is the sparkle for the masses. The people who see "The Wow Starts Now" ads for Vista and go, "ooh Vista's beautiful". Composite desktops in Linux are a "we've got the wow too!" I think it's very important to avoid being seen as the ugly duckling.
;)
In this regard, wobbly windows serve their purpose
Excellent. The more we block untrustworthy sites, the better our students are protected from finding "misleading" or "unreliable" information.
I think it's very important that students in schools are only allowed to access 100% accurate information. That way, when they get out into the real world, they will trust everything they read and can be manipulated easily.
(Perhaps this is some of that British humour you were talking about)...
Hopefully they would make the price a bit more expensive, so that when you bought one in the US, the surplus went to funding the OLPC in other countries. (Or at least gave you that option).
But I don't think this laptop would really be the most productive environment for a working adult. It's designed for kids and it seeps this design in every aspect.
This is all sounding good (you seem to be quite an expert). So I'll just say: yes - but the system architecture does have a lot to do with the security model. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but IMHO, the Unix security model is far superior as an architecture than the Windows one, and that says something.
The fact is, it isn't a case of "you broke the rules as defined in the EULA, we're terminating your service". It's actually a case that the EULA specifically gives the publisher, in this case, Blizzard, the right to terminate the contract at any time. This means they need to have no reason whatsoever, or they could just make up a reason on the spot.
Furthermore Blizzard use automated tools to detect when people "break their rules" and have been known to ban players falsely. Legally there is nothing the banned player can do but buy a new game, because the terms of the EULA state that Blizzard can ban whoever they want.
From the World of Warcraft Terms of Use:(My emphasis). See the link above for the ridiculous naming rules. Maybe they are sensible enough, but realise that breaking these very loose rules (such as leetspeek or "GeneralTed") WOULD legally constitute breaking these terms.(My emphasis). (My emphasis). Worded another way, but with exactly equivalent semantics, Blizzard explicitly grant themselves the right to terminate your account for any reason at all whether it is in violation of these terms or not.
But as you say, if Blizzard decides to terminate my account, it's my fault and I deserve to lose my $80 plus $60 I paid for the expansion pack now bound to my account.
(I'm not an angry troll who got his account banned, I'm just an angry ex-customer who will not agree to blatantly immoral and all-powerful license agreements).
Maybe the end is good. But let's look at the ramifications here. Basically, we've agreed this is not a copyright violation. It is simply a violation of the EULA.
So in effect, this software company is allowed to dictate terms well beyond the normal legal means or they cancel the service. This is all well and good, except that the service is inextricably linked to a product. This situation is the root of all evil.
To elaborate, my gardener is well within his rights to say "if I find anything in your garden which I don't like, I will terminate this service". If we both agree on these terms, then yes, if I have some nasty critters or something in my garden and he finds them, he can walk away, and I'll have to find a new gardener. But the gardener is just a service, and that's all, it really doesn't cost me anything to find a new gardener.
World of Warcraft is a product and a service in one. The product itself costs the normal cost of a computer game, plus the cost of the expansion. THEN you pay a service on top of that. This in itself is morally wrong IMHO. But the fact that Blizzard cancelling the service in effect makes the product COMPLETELY USELESS means it really isn't right that they can dictate the terms of the service as freely as my gardener can.
That's basically like my gardener saying "I need you to buy me a $60 pair of shears, and then I'll charge you for doing your garden, BUT if I find anything I don't like in the garden, I'll keep the $60 and suspend your service (but you're more than welcome to buy me a new pair of shears and we'll start our arrangement again - in fact I'd quite like that)". If a gardener said that to you, you'd think he was a crook.
In summary: Providing a product and service rolled into one is wrong. Being able to terminate the service at any time but keep the revenue made from selling the now-useless product is oh so wrong.
Does this also mean if you can't trust your own users, they could be using root as well?
I understand that any one hole in a system means people can flow through. But I thought the point was that the ENTIRE system was designed from the ground up with this in mind, so that there are literally very few places to poke holes in (and those places are highly checked for security).