Any MS statement is a marketing tool for strategic reasons. This "threat" is simply another statement in a long line of crafted messages. It's propaganda to be sure, but that's what large businesses do and MS does it well. I personally believe they are more successful as a business than how they implement software solutions, but I'm in a minority unless I'm on this board. Sure, it's FUD, but it's business FUD, and typical business FUD, which is hardly worth all the attention until they actually do litigate.
If you object and your employer explains that "information just wants to be free" then all your dissenting arguments have been obviously trumped and there is no point in further discussion. If he uses the term "evil", then immediately return to your cubicle to re-examine your moral cred.
Management doesn't understand you or what you do. That's your fault. Once a day I go to a different office, a different section or division head, and to their staff offices and ask, "Hows the IT today? Everything working alright? You have everything you need?" And I listen and get back to them. If they trust that you care, then they'll start listening to you. And if they trust you, they won't slam you the first time there's a mini-crisis on their desktop. The best survey is done over and over at least on a weekly basis face to face. It's not a written benchmark but there's nothing better than getting to know the users, those ungrateful fucks, and letting them get to know you, you bitter, overworked bastard.
Dell isn't "interested" in sparking the interest of anybody. They just want to sell boxes. But it poses an interesting scenario. Grandma's kid or the kid next door fixes her box. Will the kid next door get interested in Linux? If so, then the potential cascade might be interesting. But if he can't and blows her off, Grannie's going to be pissed.
I guess if an invading army decided to hit all your NAPS you're SOL (all your NAP are belong to us) but a greater threat might be a chip embargo during a war or a period of instability. Open up your box lately? The Asian Tigers have our peckers in their pockets. I fully expect this to occur downstream and it's a greater threat to "national security" than most want to admit.
If a company includes in its own closed proprietary package an application covered by GPLv3, does that threaten that company's proprietary control over the rest of their package? The GPLv3 seems ambiguous but I'm inept reading legalese. But I do worry that as the GPLv3 becomes more antagonistic towards the private sector, users will not see innovation benefits that otherwise may occur. Society benefits from innovations in both sectors, private and open: I've been the beneficiary of both and more power to both sides.
Pidgin provides process synergy that efficiently dovetails with user driven application and program requirements. The marketplace has shown that stakeholders who can leverage this real-time technology provided by Pidgin will see positive trend improvements that coincide with downstream efficiencies of scale.
I dunno. I just had to. In that context, the name Pidgin sounds just dandy.
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
I want to understand this guy's philosophy well enough to be able to explain it in terms that don't draw guffaws. But I don't. Software that I pay for isn't an ethical question, it's just software that I pay for - it's my money, I spend it all the time. But I see the value in having an alternative that FOSS offers. So in that sense, I like his gist, but just can't buy it whole cloth when he makes such an absurd statement regarding ethics. Not only am I farther from understanding, I'm farther from wanting to understand. He's really his worst enemy isn't he?
Great, more emanations flying around the everyday environment to worry about crashing into my fragile DNA. I don't worry about it enough to don my aluminium foil hat, but at the very least I back away from my microwave when that thing of evil is humming along. At least it has a door to close.
I'm entitled to infringe copyright on music since music is culture and I have an inalienable right to culture. Any law that prevents access to culture is an evil law and thus I shouldn't be held liable for breaking that law: anyone who enforces that law is evil, by definition. Musicians who believe they have a right to their admittedly small contractual royalties on CD sales, regardless if royalties are their primary income, are tools since real art is performed for the sheer love of the art, not for profit. One other thing. The music companies have been wildly profitable. Because I believe there should be limits to the amount of money corporations can make, it should not be illegal to do anything that might diminish those profits. Obscene profits are not socially responsible so I don't have to observe legal niceties that protect the socially irresponsible.
Did I get that right?
No need for a generational ship. Build the ark now on the moon. It'll be good practice. If it works, leapfrog to Mars, build another one there and incorporate revisions. Keep leapfrogging to stable planetary masses and sooner or later we'll find an earth like planet. This method insures colonists have a goal in sight, figuratively as opposed to an uncertain and likely disastrous conclusion. The downside is that the first sustainable colony will become separatists. Or maybe that's not a downside. Anyway, how far can we go with that method? I'm assuming that before we leave the solar system the fuel tech will catch up to the sustainable living conditions tech.
I'm not in principle against a rational rights management. But how DRM is implemented is unpredictable to the consumer and that's why we'll see market failure for the devices (unless it's improved). Not a good example regarding Blu-Ray and HD but for instance, I downloaded (paid) an archived baseball game from MLB.com to watch and savor. BUT. DRM prevented me from burning the download to a disc so I could enjoyably pop it in my player and watch it on a big screen. Unpredictably to this consumer, I was forced to watch it on my CRT and I was pissed I had paid money for a product that was crippled. So I as an otherwise Average Joe who really had no previous views on DRM was alienated by a simple experience that has left me hostile to the idiots who are implementing DRM with no real thought about the consumer.
If DRM implementation for B-Ray and HD-DVD is going to similarly tangle up the consumer in ways that are entirely unexpected to him, and all it takes is once, there will be predictable backlash. The consumer wants a toaster. Key matching or revocation implementations to brown a slice of bread laughably introduces complexities that will become multiple points of failure and the market will reject it unless it is down sensibly.
Slashdot Mirror
Any MS statement is a marketing tool for strategic reasons. This "threat" is simply another statement in a long line of crafted messages. It's propaganda to be sure, but that's what large businesses do and MS does it well. I personally believe they are more successful as a business than how they implement software solutions, but I'm in a minority unless I'm on this board. Sure, it's FUD, but it's business FUD, and typical business FUD, which is hardly worth all the attention until they actually do litigate.
If you object and your employer explains that "information just wants to be free" then all your dissenting arguments have been obviously trumped and there is no point in further discussion. If he uses the term "evil", then immediately return to your cubicle to re-examine your moral cred.
Dell isn't "interested" in sparking the interest of anybody. They just want to sell boxes. But it poses an interesting scenario. Grandma's kid or the kid next door fixes her box. Will the kid next door get interested in Linux? If so, then the potential cascade might be interesting. But if he can't and blows her off, Grannie's going to be pissed.
I guess if an invading army decided to hit all your NAPS you're SOL (all your NAP are belong to us) but a greater threat might be a chip embargo during a war or a period of instability. Open up your box lately? The Asian Tigers have our peckers in their pockets. I fully expect this to occur downstream and it's a greater threat to "national security" than most want to admit.
If a company includes in its own closed proprietary package an application covered by GPLv3, does that threaten that company's proprietary control over the rest of their package? The GPLv3 seems ambiguous but I'm inept reading legalese. But I do worry that as the GPLv3 becomes more antagonistic towards the private sector, users will not see innovation benefits that otherwise may occur. Society benefits from innovations in both sectors, private and open: I've been the beneficiary of both and more power to both sides.
Pidgin provides process synergy that efficiently dovetails with user driven application and program requirements. The marketplace has shown that stakeholders who can leverage this real-time technology provided by Pidgin will see positive trend improvements that coincide with downstream efficiencies of scale. I dunno. I just had to. In that context, the name Pidgin sounds just dandy.
umm....yes? Think of it as paying a minor distribution fee for a project you support.
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]" I want to understand this guy's philosophy well enough to be able to explain it in terms that don't draw guffaws. But I don't. Software that I pay for isn't an ethical question, it's just software that I pay for - it's my money, I spend it all the time. But I see the value in having an alternative that FOSS offers. So in that sense, I like his gist, but just can't buy it whole cloth when he makes such an absurd statement regarding ethics. Not only am I farther from understanding, I'm farther from wanting to understand. He's really his worst enemy isn't he?
Great, more emanations flying around the everyday environment to worry about crashing into my fragile DNA. I don't worry about it enough to don my aluminium foil hat, but at the very least I back away from my microwave when that thing of evil is humming along. At least it has a door to close.
I'm entitled to infringe copyright on music since music is culture and I have an inalienable right to culture. Any law that prevents access to culture is an evil law and thus I shouldn't be held liable for breaking that law: anyone who enforces that law is evil, by definition. Musicians who believe they have a right to their admittedly small contractual royalties on CD sales, regardless if royalties are their primary income, are tools since real art is performed for the sheer love of the art, not for profit. One other thing. The music companies have been wildly profitable. Because I believe there should be limits to the amount of money corporations can make, it should not be illegal to do anything that might diminish those profits. Obscene profits are not socially responsible so I don't have to observe legal niceties that protect the socially irresponsible. Did I get that right?
Any robut smart enough to rear children is simply going to refuse to do so.
No need for a generational ship. Build the ark now on the moon. It'll be good practice. If it works, leapfrog to Mars, build another one there and incorporate revisions. Keep leapfrogging to stable planetary masses and sooner or later we'll find an earth like planet. This method insures colonists have a goal in sight, figuratively as opposed to an uncertain and likely disastrous conclusion. The downside is that the first sustainable colony will become separatists. Or maybe that's not a downside. Anyway, how far can we go with that method? I'm assuming that before we leave the solar system the fuel tech will catch up to the sustainable living conditions tech.
I'm not in principle against a rational rights management. But how DRM is implemented is unpredictable to the consumer and that's why we'll see market failure for the devices (unless it's improved). Not a good example regarding Blu-Ray and HD but for instance, I downloaded (paid) an archived baseball game from MLB.com to watch and savor. BUT. DRM prevented me from burning the download to a disc so I could enjoyably pop it in my player and watch it on a big screen. Unpredictably to this consumer, I was forced to watch it on my CRT and I was pissed I had paid money for a product that was crippled. So I as an otherwise Average Joe who really had no previous views on DRM was alienated by a simple experience that has left me hostile to the idiots who are implementing DRM with no real thought about the consumer. If DRM implementation for B-Ray and HD-DVD is going to similarly tangle up the consumer in ways that are entirely unexpected to him, and all it takes is once, there will be predictable backlash. The consumer wants a toaster. Key matching or revocation implementations to brown a slice of bread laughably introduces complexities that will become multiple points of failure and the market will reject it unless it is down sensibly.