If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.
Wow! Imagine the outrage from all those people who sit through dinner every night without another valuable oportunity to buy something they are not interested in. This could be a very popular lawsuit indeed. It's a travesty, I tell you. Someone must have made a robot to call in all those numbers, it can't be that people don't really want to get carpet cleaning, siding, credit card and bankrupcy solicitations, can it?
You say: An artist should (and under law, does, unless they sign it away) have complete control over their artistic creations... YOU do not have the right to determine how the artist's creation is distributed. For better or for worse, it is their choice. Deal.
I have the right to do as I please. Artists do to. Copyright, however, is a created right which requires government intervention and protection. Natural rights require no such protection and are only violated by unbearable governments. The exclusive distribution you seem to love was created by the framers of the constitution to promote publication. As publication is much easier and cheaper, there is less protection needed.
Electronic copy is not theft. Republication of an electronic work is copyright violation and might be persued that way. A publisher might be due lost sales, proved in a reasonable manner and punitive damages if the copy was willful or malicious. Me making a few copies of an ebook for my own use represents no loss at all. Sharing with a few frinds and family may actually promote sales. If I can't have reasonable control over electronic works that I purchase, I won't buy them. The best things in life are not made for money anyway.
Yes, it is idiotic but it's also imoral. The fundamental wrong here is that the publisher demands control of your printing press. Your computer is your printing press, and the library's program takes control of it. That's right, if you don't have control of every byte on your computer but someone else does that someone else owns your computer. Obviously, the publisher is trying to set up an unreasonable system.
The crux of the Right to Read is that publishers would use technology to own all information. The idea is that you are so greatful to have access to that information that you will give everything that you create back to the publisher. In order to do this publishers have to make copying their information difficult and convince us all that sharing infomation is moraly wrong, that our own intelect is not worth much and most importantly THAT THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SHARE INFORMATION. Compared to the vast wealth of everyone else's intelect one person is not much, so the publishers will always win that one. The other notions are absurd, moraly reprehesible and must be fought every day. We can publish information ourselves for free if we wish and there are other ways for publishers to get along.
The Clevland library should be ashamed of itself for working for disreputable publisher who demand more than their due for an electronic copy. Electronic information is easier to publish than any other form of information ever. It can be coppied efortlessly, editied easily and transormed into many forms. Reputable publishers will have to find some way to use their reputations for profit and libraries, which exist as you point out to share information, should work to support and encourage them. Where's the link to Project Gutenburg and other free libraries on the Clevland site? The over simplified and distorted globe that sits on their front page is appropriate to the way they are running themselves. Yeah, they use M$ crap, it figures. They are so greatful their computers sort of work that they are willing to relinquish control of them when there are superior and cheaper free alternatives. Get with it, Clevland.
Now the companies do the have RIGHT to sue my ass in court for theft if I steal it though.:)
No they don't. They have only convinced you that it is wrong to share and that electronic copy is theft. By the way, I would not give two dollars to own a donkey, much less try to bring one to court.
You realize that the world IS watching that movie? Self rightous loons everywhere will be convinced that the best thing to do is fight to an honorable death. Sadam and Jong can both use this film to inspire their troops.
You realize that the folks that will block useful legislation will also work to get him fired for having the nerve to contradict them. We all risk our jobs with our opinions but he's gone out on a limb to generate publicity for his cause. It's a dare.
Of the top of my head, I imagine that large ISPs, traditional media and government all would like email to be little more than a marketing and propaganda tool run by a few "official" mail servers. If they get their way the internet will resemble digital TV more than it does a network of peered computers designed to share information and computing resources. Oh yeah, Uncle Sam will get his $.50 for each email too. Shut up, spend and consume they say. Screw off I say. Fire me, says Lessing. I wish him luck.
If your solutions were working, our visionary would have nothing to talk about. As it is your nice little list and many consolidated clueless ISPs blacklist my computer because I use a dial up. Nice fix, turkey. As things are, I have to use some "official" mail relay to write my own mother email.
MAPS does not work for me, or the spam heavy ISPs that bounce my mail.
Lessig's position is clear and postive. Yours is negative and confused. I'm glad someone is pushing forward a solution that's more than a tool of consolidation. Thanks for telling me about the equestrophiles. So many trolls, so little time.
So, why are you anonymous today? Tell us a little about yourself. Then explain why you have not considered those of us that would like to use free software tools for installs, voice over IP, or share home made movies with our friends. Slapping your customers will ruin you, if indeed you are who you say you are.
Clamping down on bandwith is going to screw you, much to the delight of large ISPs charging you peering fees. They would rather gouge your customers than have you offer anoying competition. I don't think I'd fit into your extensive usage pattern study and I'd be unhappy with your service, espeically if you offered less than I could download via old fashion modem. (Hint, it takes about 15 days at 4kBps to download 5 gigs). Cutting off my download is sure to piss me off. Charging me four times dialup prices and then some more for the ability to download is really rude. I won't get into serving questions because you have not mentioned that and may just hand out fixed IP adresses and allow your clients to do as they please.
You say, So to answer the question "what are the true costs of bandwidth", I'd say, "However much gouging the average consumer can accept. The public be damned."
I say that soon people will find a way to supply free bandwith. It's in everyones best interest but current telcom, govenment, media. That may sound like a lot of opposition and it is. The same interests also stand against free software. Those that would continue to screw you can be defeated.
You and the New York Times are missing the bigger picture. You say that we should stop watching TV and movies if we don't like what we see. Great, I doubt anyone would object to that. I don't pay for cable TV and I rarely watch broadcast. I'll miss broadcast TV when the feds turn it into some kind of ecrypted nightmare, but not much more than I miss it now. Right now I miss it a whole lot. What I'm talking about is the fact that there are millions of people making content that I will never be aware of. The larger problem is that DRM is being used to conqure the digital world and perpetuate the artificial scarcity of recorded music and films that 100 year old technology created.
That evil box sitting on your TV and "media consolidation" are the keys to making every place as unserved by culture as North West Alaska in 1910. Media consolidation assures the current broadcasters that no on else will be able to provide content. MP3.com will die sooner or later under it's lawsuit loads, and all the others that would do likewise know better than to throw good money after bad. That evil box on your TV will makes sure no one else can create content that your TV will play. An equivalent box in the local movie theater already prescribes what content will apear on the screen and when - without a physical copy ever entering the building. Wanna try to get your movie distributed in a theater like that? Good luck trying to own the satilite, and escaping the FBI if you try. The theater owner can't help you even if they wanted to.
The only solution is to create a peer maintained independent wireless network. All the wires are owned by people who think they can screw you all day long.
Not only are MS and Linux free to choose how to express themselves, their customers and users are, too!
and I'll add to it: Customer freedom leaves M$ two choices, adopt free licenses or fail under an obsolete business model. Freedom is the ability to do what you want, fiscal reward for your activities is not a given.
Microsoft thinks that they are entitled to income based on their "correct" business model. Most of the presentation was about software philosopy and why the GPL is wrong. It's funny how M$ overlooks their own strident propaganda while spending billions to promote it.
The only way for M$ to remain relative and profitable is for them to free their source code NOW. The longer they wait, the more pollished their "competitor's" free code becomes, the less credit anyone will give them when they see the light. Only swift and positive action will resotore faith in anything M$.
These jpgs were obviously taken at great risk in some kind of M$ presentation. We are lucky that they did not perrish with one or two of those risk taker's jobs.
Seriously, this demonstrates a larger trust issue. No one inside of M$ will take credit for that kind of thing and no one will believe anyone outside of M$ when they pubish that sort of thing. Why is this true? Because Microsoft is dishonest, that's why. How simple.
Great things are happening, numbers don't make the difference you worry about. You say:
Microsoft is able to at least count if not gather demographics for every desktop machine running Windows95 or above, regardless of whether it is licensed or not, through WindowsUpdate.
Sounds impartial to me. M$ would never tell a lie would they? Right, even if they knew the truth, they would never tell it.
Counting is futile. Have you ever worked for a US Census? You know, that thing where people are paid to determine every habitable dwelling in the United States and then inspect on foot each and every one that did not return a census form? If you do, you will understand that the outome of that most rigorus of all counts is +-10% or so. In Linux terms that could mean they miss Linux all together. Incridible, no?
There's no need when you have the power of clue. Clue comes from experience and knowledge. We have all used free software, know it is superior and why. M$'s little Holoween release shows they have some small clue. Yet, like all the troll posts here it shows they don't know what to do with that clue. Instead of making real changes, they are continuing to simply lie and harras. Mostly clue is a thing for you and me. Once you get it, your computers work and all the little M$ dreams of passports, untrusted user control, digital rights denial, and total information rape just vanish.
I know that free software is winning acceptance. I see my friends trying it, and they don't go back. It will be reflected in informal counts. It's just that simple.
This will all be over before M$ knows what hit it. They lost the developers, they are losing their users and with that, they are losing their grip on equipment makers. Look at what little good their $1 billion advert attack did for XP - zip. You can call a dog a lot of things, but it's still a dog. You can't convince people they are happy with something that does not do what they want but does many things they don't want. The trickle is becoming a washout, despite free CDs rollerskating butterflies and all that.
I'm expecting great hardware advances and for more and more device makers to open their specs, if not simply set their programers to more useful work than costly M$ device nighmares and SDK costs. Bogus laws asside, this year will be cool like that.
The only people that believe that Linux is an easier solution and one that you can get by without any proprietary systems are people who don't work in corporate environments. When you grow up you'll realize that you need to depend on vendors, because when things break if you are the dumbass that installed some new l33t freedom fighter application instead of a tried and true, supported, proprietary app you lose your job. End of story.
Huh? Why bother with a vendor when you could just apt-get? I used to work in one of those clueless cubicle farms. They had all sorts of M$ problems, from insecure email to equipment they could not use because the software had changed. The worst part was how they could not share information efficiently. Propriatory formats, hopless networking and all that M$ incompetentce. The stupid big dogs that made decisions kept trying to chase data security, but simply made life hell and security remained non existant.
Hardware incompatibility under M$ is real, it's just a time issue. When the time is up, you buy a new one. Suck. In the free world, your device lasts as long as you or someone else feels like it's worth the effort to keep up the driver.
Fine, maybe you'd like to come round to my house and show me how to install my winmodem on Linux.
Why would you want to buy such a Microsoft encouraged piece of junk like that? You could have a much nicer real modem instead. It's sad that you got screwed over like that, but that's how M$ wants to make money. Then you say:
You can have fun scouring the Internet searching for a device driver, find out where to put it in my kernel source tree, compile the kernel successfully without breaking anything, and getting KPPP to recognise it. How does that sound?
Sounds like hell. Throw that sad little winmodem in the trash, it's worth $10 or less if you try to sell it and it's absolutely worthless in five years or so. Then buy a $40 modem with a controler in it, plug it in and run your favorite dialer. I use wvdial, and then ipchain mask it to all my other computers. All my computers stay up all the time and I never have to fool with them. Can you say that about M$ junk?
Of course it would be nice to compile a few custom kernels, and I just might for some wireless network cards I bought. Uggg, it's like the early days of ethernet.
Sooner or later, hardware makers are going to wake up to the fact that people are not willing to pay for junk they have to throw away when the software changes. Equipment vendors will quit buying such junk and that's it, M$ goes poof. Why buy their decidedly inferior O$ and window managers, when there are better free alternatives? It's only a matter of time. There's a reason for the tech slump, it's called distrust and M$ made it for themselves. They will cook in their own juices.
Since the basic code is freely available, Linux can be distributed at rock-bottom prices or at no charge, but the license also makes it more difficult for distributors to charge premium prices for proprietary technology.
Then some people blow smoke about "usability" and "not compatible with as much hardware as Windows XP." What shit.
The only reason it's difficult to charge "premium prices for proprietary technology" is because free software does it all anyway. The only reason there are hardware problems is because some companies have yet to grasp that the day of closed source binaries is over and still think M$ will help them bilk customers with a perpetual waste of adequate equipment replaced like dead M$ binaries. You know, hide the workings of the thing so that you have to buy a new one when the driver no longer works becase M$ changed their O$. Pththth-fit!
M$ is dead, long live freedom. M$ screwed the pooch with all their stupid conquer the world dreams and obnoxious practices. Who would use a browser that alows an advertiser to pop open a window and send you piles crap you did not request? Who would use an O$ that lets third parties rummage through your files and life? No, it's really over. M$ never had anything sepcial, got in the way of much innovation and everyone knows it. Their billions of dollars will evaporate like some kind of bad dream. Equipment makers who want to sell equipment will have to be honest about it.
You say, " I don't mean for this to come across as trollish," but that's OK. You can't hide the truth.
The 1996 Economic Espionage Act is a vauge piece of work that extends federal power into civil law and outside of the Unite States. While it may be under the federal government's legitimate duties to regulate international trade and the first section of the act may make sense, the rest of it regulates what is rightly a mater of state civil law, contracts between employees and firms. If I work for a firm and sign a non disclosure contract and then break it, I'm liable for the damages I may have done but that's NOT A CRIME, it's a breach of a private contract.
Secifically, this case should not hold water because Huges obviously did not hold it's trade secrets close enough. See the act itself, quoted here,
(3) the term 'trade secret' means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if -- (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret
What were these trade secrets doing in a law firm? What was that law firm doing handing them to an intern?!!! Did that intern sign anything binding him to non release of information? Details like this are very important.
This case may be the begining of a very real shift in "intelectual property" law. It's a very small step from jailing this intern, who may have been under no contract, to jailing you and me for picking up a paper on the street. Such a broadening of trade secret "protection" will eliminate the need for patents as all technology will be under protection, without the benifits of public disclosure.
Those are a few issuse that you might be worried about.
The artilcle's questions only make sense because software copyrights don't make sense. Witness:
Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program? Almost every program links to library routines. Surely, one doesn't create a derivative work of a library simply by calling a sqrt function in the library. Why should it be any different when you link to something as complex as an enterprise server or database engine? What about linking from a software program, such as when linking your device driver into a GPL- or OSL-licensed program like Linux?
Very good questions indeed! They point out the futility of applying something like copyright to software in the first place. Until the law catches up, we must use its flaws to promote free software.
This is not a dificult proposition. Many confusing and silly things have been written above by those who wish to write propriatory code. Bah! Free code can and does call non-free code. Non-free code can and does call free code. It should be obvious that a VB script that calls M$ Word and types "Hello World" can be GPL, though it exists at the mercy of greiviously non free software. Conversly, someone could write a silly CLI porgram that prints a menue and parses input to GNU find and grep and call it easyfind. The only real question is, why bother? Do you thing you can sell it? Someone will write a free version if they have not done so already.
All of those silly people who would like to plunder the free world to support their abusive and failing software model can simply sick it. Go away, I don't appreciate the way your companies do business, don't need your work, and don't ever think I'll link to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same things that would happen to me if I tried to sell my Hello World program on a CD that contained M$ Word will happen to you if you try to sell a CD that includes binary only grep. Well, not really, you could just make the source code to grep, including your modifications, available and all will be well.
Thanks for the nice scientific computing benchmarks. The only thing that I could have asked for was a run of G77 code. Static memory and only pass by reference should make it quick, no? One day, I think I'll have to try it out myself.
I think that having a good understanding of how something works is far more valuable than having a specific rote procedure to follow. If you understand it, you can deal with situations that haven't been pre-scripted i.e. you can deal with unplanned emergencies. If all you know is a set of rote procedures then you're in serious trouble when something crops up for which you don't have a set procedure.
As another poster mentioned here, his number one quality for the job is aptitude. If that's not problem solving, I'm not sure what is. So it seems that you and the article agree, except that the author expects his juniors to get it and would not keep them around long if they did not.
for more details. Whee! 96 countries so far, but predominant in UK and Netherlands. Thanks for all the "security" work, M$, I can see how much you have improved. Surely the new total information awareness will have the foul criminals in jail before long, ha. Next year will be just like last year, but worse.
The constition limits what government can do, not what you or I can do. 'Animals, children, scavengers, snoops and other members of the public' are not paid officials of the government. A racoon may embarass me by spilling my garbage on the road, but it won't create a public record or trigger a raid on my house.
For the very same reasons, searches of garbage are useless for providing reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. Anyone can walk by and place drugs, kiddie porn and other foul things in anyone's garbage.
If you can't get a warant to seach a house, you don't have reason to dig through garbage and the results are not worth the trouble.
You are very confused, let me help you out. You think the fact that the city picks up your trash for you gives the city the right to a detailed examination. Hmmm, that's not what I expect the garbage man to do, do you. I pay city taxes for my trash to be disposed of, not to have it catagorized and the results filed for all to see. The plain English of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution is informative and governing:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How simple can it get? If you don't have reasonable cause to search my house and can't get a warrent for that, you don't have grounds to dig through my trash, so piss off. When I put my trash out, I expect it to go to a sanitary landfill.
Now a private individual digging through my trash is a different matter which indeed may lead to a reasonable seach warrent. The lines are corssed, however, when public servants are the violators. Also, because a trash can on the street is NOT really under my control, "evidence" found there is not realy useful for much. Sworn testomony by neighbors to illegal activity is a much more useful thing than finding something in a trash can that anyone could have put there.
I want the police to be able to catch the bag guys just as much as you do, but I don't want innocent people suffering and I don't want to live in fear my house will be searched unreasonably. I don't like the idea that someone with a grudge could drop drugs and kiddie porn into my trashcan and get my house raided. Think about it for a while and you will realize that the only way to put the bad guys away is to catch them and pove they done what they did beyond a reasonable doubt. Digs in trashcans are a cheap and useless trick that offer nothing but abuse for all of us good guys.
I mean, think about what an exploit really is: Somebody has taken a feature of Windows and turned it against the user or the user's machine. The problem I see here is that you can't have a totally secure machine and have all those fancy features you like.
I'll give you an example: I use Outlooks's to do list to keep track of my tasks. There's a feature where you can attach shortcuts to each task. I've found this handy, whenever I need to do my time sheet I just pull up the task and double click the shortcut inside of it. Now, in order to 'crack down' on security on my computer, I turned off a bunch of those handy-dandy features and found myself unable to launch that shortcut anymore!
Now, before you start saying "Oh, MS could easily fix that...", instead think about the real problem here. Either I don't use that feature at all, or MS has to think of every single malicious use of a feature and only allow the non-dangerous ones. Sorry, that's not a good solution. You're holding MS (or anybody else) responsible for other people's creativity.
Umm, you might fault M$ for not using the reasonable and common security model of unprivlidged users to interact with an untrusted network. While I must congratulate you for figuring out how to make M$ and Lookout do things for you, have you ever considered the posibility of running Lookout as something other than "administrator" or super user so that tasks that can be assigned by others by email with links to malicious servers don't blow up your system files? Wow, what a concept. The rest of us will consider automatically executing code from email and tasks as root to be crimianal negligence. Not only was M$ aware of the problem before it shipped Lookout, but everyone with a clue warned that the results would be catasrophic.
Now, what was your point? That M$ is insecure because it has so many "features"? Get real.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! Imagine the outrage from all those people who sit through dinner every night without another valuable oportunity to buy something they are not interested in. This could be a very popular lawsuit indeed. It's a travesty, I tell you. Someone must have made a robot to call in all those numbers, it can't be that people don't really want to get carpet cleaning, siding, credit card and bankrupcy solicitations, can it?
I have the right to do as I please. Artists do to. Copyright, however, is a created right which requires government intervention and protection. Natural rights require no such protection and are only violated by unbearable governments. The exclusive distribution you seem to love was created by the framers of the constitution to promote publication. As publication is much easier and cheaper, there is less protection needed.
Electronic copy is not theft. Republication of an electronic work is copyright violation and might be persued that way. A publisher might be due lost sales, proved in a reasonable manner and punitive damages if the copy was willful or malicious. Me making a few copies of an ebook for my own use represents no loss at all. Sharing with a few frinds and family may actually promote sales. If I can't have reasonable control over electronic works that I purchase, I won't buy them. The best things in life are not made for money anyway.
The crux of the Right to Read is that publishers would use technology to own all information. The idea is that you are so greatful to have access to that information that you will give everything that you create back to the publisher. In order to do this publishers have to make copying their information difficult and convince us all that sharing infomation is moraly wrong, that our own intelect is not worth much and most importantly THAT THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SHARE INFORMATION. Compared to the vast wealth of everyone else's intelect one person is not much, so the publishers will always win that one. The other notions are absurd, moraly reprehesible and must be fought every day. We can publish information ourselves for free if we wish and there are other ways for publishers to get along.
The Clevland library should be ashamed of itself for working for disreputable publisher who demand more than their due for an electronic copy. Electronic information is easier to publish than any other form of information ever. It can be coppied efortlessly, editied easily and transormed into many forms. Reputable publishers will have to find some way to use their reputations for profit and libraries, which exist as you point out to share information, should work to support and encourage them. Where's the link to Project Gutenburg and other free libraries on the Clevland site? The over simplified and distorted globe that sits on their front page is appropriate to the way they are running themselves. Yeah, they use M$ crap, it figures. They are so greatful their computers sort of work that they are willing to relinquish control of them when there are superior and cheaper free alternatives. Get with it, Clevland.
No they don't. They have only convinced you that it is wrong to share and that electronic copy is theft. By the way, I would not give two dollars to own a donkey, much less try to bring one to court.
You realize that the world IS watching that movie? Self rightous loons everywhere will be convinced that the best thing to do is fight to an honorable death. Sadam and Jong can both use this film to inspire their troops.
Of the top of my head, I imagine that large ISPs, traditional media and government all would like email to be little more than a marketing and propaganda tool run by a few "official" mail servers. If they get their way the internet will resemble digital TV more than it does a network of peered computers designed to share information and computing resources. Oh yeah, Uncle Sam will get his $.50 for each email too. Shut up, spend and consume they say. Screw off I say. Fire me, says Lessing. I wish him luck.
MAPS does not work for me, or the spam heavy ISPs that bounce my mail.
Lessig's position is clear and postive. Yours is negative and confused. I'm glad someone is pushing forward a solution that's more than a tool of consolidation. Thanks for telling me about the equestrophiles. So many trolls, so little time.
Clamping down on bandwith is going to screw you, much to the delight of large ISPs charging you peering fees. They would rather gouge your customers than have you offer anoying competition. I don't think I'd fit into your extensive usage pattern study and I'd be unhappy with your service, espeically if you offered less than I could download via old fashion modem. (Hint, it takes about 15 days at 4kBps to download 5 gigs). Cutting off my download is sure to piss me off. Charging me four times dialup prices and then some more for the ability to download is really rude. I won't get into serving questions because you have not mentioned that and may just hand out fixed IP adresses and allow your clients to do as they please.
I say that soon people will find a way to supply free bandwith. It's in everyones best interest but current telcom, govenment, media. That may sound like a lot of opposition and it is. The same interests also stand against free software. Those that would continue to screw you can be defeated.
Rise up, wireles mesh!
That evil box sitting on your TV and "media consolidation" are the keys to making every place as unserved by culture as North West Alaska in 1910. Media consolidation assures the current broadcasters that no on else will be able to provide content. MP3.com will die sooner or later under it's lawsuit loads, and all the others that would do likewise know better than to throw good money after bad. That evil box on your TV will makes sure no one else can create content that your TV will play. An equivalent box in the local movie theater already prescribes what content will apear on the screen and when - without a physical copy ever entering the building. Wanna try to get your movie distributed in a theater like that? Good luck trying to own the satilite, and escaping the FBI if you try. The theater owner can't help you even if they wanted to.
The only solution is to create a peer maintained independent wireless network. All the wires are owned by people who think they can screw you all day long.
Not only are MS and Linux free to choose how to express themselves, their customers and users are, too!
and I'll add to it: Customer freedom leaves M$ two choices, adopt free licenses or fail under an obsolete business model. Freedom is the ability to do what you want, fiscal reward for your activities is not a given.
Microsoft thinks that they are entitled to income based on their "correct" business model. Most of the presentation was about software philosopy and why the GPL is wrong. It's funny how M$ overlooks their own strident propaganda while spending billions to promote it.
The only way for M$ to remain relative and profitable is for them to free their source code NOW. The longer they wait, the more pollished their "competitor's" free code becomes, the less credit anyone will give them when they see the light. Only swift and positive action will resotore faith in anything M$.
Seriously, this demonstrates a larger trust issue. No one inside of M$ will take credit for that kind of thing and no one will believe anyone outside of M$ when they pubish that sort of thing. Why is this true? Because Microsoft is dishonest, that's why. How simple.
Microsoft is able to at least count if not gather demographics for every desktop machine running Windows95 or above, regardless of whether it is licensed or not, through WindowsUpdate.
Sounds impartial to me. M$ would never tell a lie would they? Right, even if they knew the truth, they would never tell it.
Counting is futile. Have you ever worked for a US Census? You know, that thing where people are paid to determine every habitable dwelling in the United States and then inspect on foot each and every one that did not return a census form? If you do, you will understand that the outome of that most rigorus of all counts is +-10% or so. In Linux terms that could mean they miss Linux all together. Incridible, no?
There's no need when you have the power of clue. Clue comes from experience and knowledge. We have all used free software, know it is superior and why. M$'s little Holoween release shows they have some small clue. Yet, like all the troll posts here it shows they don't know what to do with that clue. Instead of making real changes, they are continuing to simply lie and harras. Mostly clue is a thing for you and me. Once you get it, your computers work and all the little M$ dreams of passports, untrusted user control, digital rights denial, and total information rape just vanish.
I know that free software is winning acceptance. I see my friends trying it, and they don't go back. It will be reflected in informal counts. It's just that simple.
This will all be over before M$ knows what hit it. They lost the developers, they are losing their users and with that, they are losing their grip on equipment makers. Look at what little good their $1 billion advert attack did for XP - zip. You can call a dog a lot of things, but it's still a dog. You can't convince people they are happy with something that does not do what they want but does many things they don't want. The trickle is becoming a washout, despite free CDs rollerskating butterflies and all that.
I'm expecting great hardware advances and for more and more device makers to open their specs, if not simply set their programers to more useful work than costly M$ device nighmares and SDK costs. Bogus laws asside, this year will be cool like that.
The only people that believe that Linux is an easier solution and one that you can get by without any proprietary systems are people who don't work in corporate environments. When you grow up you'll realize that you need to depend on vendors, because when things break if you are the dumbass that installed some new l33t freedom fighter application instead of a tried and true, supported, proprietary app you lose your job. End of story.
Huh? Why bother with a vendor when you could just apt-get? I used to work in one of those clueless cubicle farms. They had all sorts of M$ problems, from insecure email to equipment they could not use because the software had changed. The worst part was how they could not share information efficiently. Propriatory formats, hopless networking and all that M$ incompetentce. The stupid big dogs that made decisions kept trying to chase data security, but simply made life hell and security remained non existant.
Hardware incompatibility under M$ is real, it's just a time issue. When the time is up, you buy a new one. Suck. In the free world, your device lasts as long as you or someone else feels like it's worth the effort to keep up the driver.
I don't know, it's been a long time since I ran an M$ O$. Here is a good run down of Number Two:
There you have it, number two on your desktop. Cross platform and all, so long as your PC does not blue screen, even M$ users can enjoy this post.
Fine, maybe you'd like to come round to my house and show me how to install my winmodem on Linux.
Why would you want to buy such a Microsoft encouraged piece of junk like that? You could have a much nicer real modem instead. It's sad that you got screwed over like that, but that's how M$ wants to make money. Then you say:
You can have fun scouring the Internet searching for a device driver, find out where to put it in my kernel source tree, compile the kernel successfully without breaking anything, and getting KPPP to recognise it. How does that sound?
Sounds like hell. Throw that sad little winmodem in the trash, it's worth $10 or less if you try to sell it and it's absolutely worthless in five years or so. Then buy a $40 modem with a controler in it, plug it in and run your favorite dialer. I use wvdial, and then ipchain mask it to all my other computers. All my computers stay up all the time and I never have to fool with them. Can you say that about M$ junk?
Of course it would be nice to compile a few custom kernels, and I just might for some wireless network cards I bought. Uggg, it's like the early days of ethernet.
Sooner or later, hardware makers are going to wake up to the fact that people are not willing to pay for junk they have to throw away when the software changes. Equipment vendors will quit buying such junk and that's it, M$ goes poof. Why buy their decidedly inferior O$ and window managers, when there are better free alternatives? It's only a matter of time. There's a reason for the tech slump, it's called distrust and M$ made it for themselves. They will cook in their own juices.
Since the basic code is freely available, Linux can be distributed at rock-bottom prices or at no charge, but the license also makes it more difficult for distributors to charge premium prices for proprietary technology.
Then some people blow smoke about "usability" and "not compatible with as much hardware as Windows XP." What shit.
The only reason it's difficult to charge "premium prices for proprietary technology" is because free software does it all anyway. The only reason there are hardware problems is because some companies have yet to grasp that the day of closed source binaries is over and still think M$ will help them bilk customers with a perpetual waste of adequate equipment replaced like dead M$ binaries. You know, hide the workings of the thing so that you have to buy a new one when the driver no longer works becase M$ changed their O$. Pththth-fit!
M$ is dead, long live freedom. M$ screwed the pooch with all their stupid conquer the world dreams and obnoxious practices. Who would use a browser that alows an advertiser to pop open a window and send you piles crap you did not request? Who would use an O$ that lets third parties rummage through your files and life? No, it's really over. M$ never had anything sepcial, got in the way of much innovation and everyone knows it. Their billions of dollars will evaporate like some kind of bad dream. Equipment makers who want to sell equipment will have to be honest about it.
You say, "
I don't mean for this to come across as trollish," but that's OK. You can't hide the truth.
Secifically, this case should not hold water because Huges obviously did not hold it's trade secrets close enough. See the act itself, quoted here,
(3) the term 'trade secret' means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if --
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret
What were these trade secrets doing in a law firm? What was that law firm doing handing them to an intern?!!! Did that intern sign anything binding him to non release of information? Details like this are very important.
This case may be the begining of a very real shift in "intelectual property" law. It's a very small step from jailing this intern, who may have been under no contract, to jailing you and me for picking up a paper on the street. Such a broadening of trade secret "protection" will eliminate the need for patents as all technology will be under protection, without the benifits of public disclosure.
Those are a few issuse that you might be worried about.
Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program? Almost every program links to library routines. Surely, one doesn't create a derivative work of a library simply by calling a sqrt function in the library. Why should it be any different when you link to something as complex as an enterprise server or database engine? What about linking from a software program, such as when linking your device driver into a GPL- or OSL-licensed program like Linux?
Very good questions indeed! They point out the futility of applying something like copyright to software in the first place. Until the law catches up, we must use its flaws to promote free software.
This is not a dificult proposition. Many confusing and silly things have been written above by those who wish to write propriatory code. Bah! Free code can and does call non-free code. Non-free code can and does call free code. It should be obvious that a VB script that calls M$ Word and types "Hello World" can be GPL, though it exists at the mercy of greiviously non free software. Conversly, someone could write a silly CLI porgram that prints a menue and parses input to GNU find and grep and call it easyfind. The only real question is, why bother? Do you thing you can sell it? Someone will write a free version if they have not done so already.
All of those silly people who would like to plunder the free world to support their abusive and failing software model can simply sick it. Go away, I don't appreciate the way your companies do business, don't need your work, and don't ever think I'll link to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same things that would happen to me if I tried to sell my Hello World program on a CD that contained M$ Word will happen to you if you try to sell a CD that includes binary only grep. Well, not really, you could just make the source code to grep, including your modifications, available and all will be well.
Thanks for the nice scientific computing benchmarks. The only thing that I could have asked for was a run of G77 code. Static memory and only pass by reference should make it quick, no? One day, I think I'll have to try it out myself.
I think that having a good understanding of how something works is far more valuable than having a specific rote procedure to follow. If you understand it, you can deal with situations that haven't been pre-scripted i.e. you can deal with unplanned emergencies. If all you know is a set of rote procedures then you're in serious trouble when something crops up for which you don't have a set procedure.
As another poster mentioned here, his number one quality for the job is aptitude. If that's not problem solving, I'm not sure what is. So it seems that you and the article agree, except that the author expects his juniors to get it and would not keep them around long if they did not.
for more details. Whee! 96 countries so far, but predominant in UK and Netherlands. Thanks for all the "security" work, M$, I can see how much you have improved. Surely the new total information awareness will have the foul criminals in jail before long, ha. Next year will be just like last year, but worse.
The constition limits what government can do, not what you or I can do. 'Animals, children, scavengers, snoops and other members of the public' are not paid officials of the government. A racoon may embarass me by spilling my garbage on the road, but it won't create a public record or trigger a raid on my house.
For the very same reasons, searches of garbage are useless for providing reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. Anyone can walk by and place drugs, kiddie porn and other foul things in anyone's garbage.
If you can't get a warant to seach a house, you don't have reason to dig through garbage and the results are not worth the trouble.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How simple can it get? If you don't have reasonable cause to search my house and can't get a warrent for that, you don't have grounds to dig through my trash, so piss off. When I put my trash out, I expect it to go to a sanitary landfill.
Now a private individual digging through my trash is a different matter which indeed may lead to a reasonable seach warrent. The lines are corssed, however, when public servants are the violators. Also, because a trash can on the street is NOT really under my control, "evidence" found there is not realy useful for much. Sworn testomony by neighbors to illegal activity is a much more useful thing than finding something in a trash can that anyone could have put there.
I want the police to be able to catch the bag guys just as much as you do, but I don't want innocent people suffering and I don't want to live in fear my house will be searched unreasonably. I don't like the idea that someone with a grudge could drop drugs and kiddie porn into my trashcan and get my house raided. Think about it for a while and you will realize that the only way to put the bad guys away is to catch them and pove they done what they did beyond a reasonable doubt. Digs in trashcans are a cheap and useless trick that offer nothing but abuse for all of us good guys.
I'll give you an example: I use Outlooks's to do list to keep track of my tasks. There's a feature where you can attach shortcuts to each task. I've found this handy, whenever I need to do my time sheet I just pull up the task and double click the shortcut inside of it. Now, in order to 'crack down' on security on my computer, I turned off a bunch of those handy-dandy features and found myself unable to launch that shortcut anymore!
Now, before you start saying "Oh, MS could easily fix that...", instead think about the real problem here. Either I don't use that feature at all, or MS has to think of every single malicious use of a feature and only allow the non-dangerous ones. Sorry, that's not a good solution. You're holding MS (or anybody else) responsible for other people's creativity.
Umm, you might fault M$ for not using the reasonable and common security model of unprivlidged users to interact with an untrusted network. While I must congratulate you for figuring out how to make M$ and Lookout do things for you, have you ever considered the posibility of running Lookout as something other than "administrator" or super user so that tasks that can be assigned by others by email with links to malicious servers don't blow up your system files? Wow, what a concept. The rest of us will consider automatically executing code from email and tasks as root to be crimianal negligence. Not only was M$ aware of the problem before it shipped Lookout, but everyone with a clue warned that the results would be catasrophic.
Now, what was your point? That M$ is insecure because it has so many "features"? Get real.