Of course, that extra machine running windows costs more than 20 bucks.
Your question is a non sequiter. Windows would not be selling this, as it is NOT something to run on their OS. it also begs the question. If MS was selling something like this, they would be making Linux apps. If MS was making Linux apps, there would be a much larger array of apps on Linux, not just from MS, but from other companies. As a result, there would be little, if any need for such an app.
I would not buy it from MS for other reasons. Now, if they were contributing useful code to the WINE project, I'd consider it.
Windows is more than 20 bucks. A seperate machine for windows is more than 20 bucks.
The price is for convenience. The convenience of NOT having the second machine, or NOT rebooting to Windows just to view a quicktime or shockwave, or MS Word/Excell/PowerPoint file, is what you are buying when you buy the Crossover Plugin.
When buying it, you are also supporting the model, the idea, and the company that contributes code, and makes appropriate use of open source. In turn, you are providing the evidence other companies need to make applications available on Linux. By purchasing Crossover for the measly 20 bucks, you are showing there is indeed, a demand for the plugins to be supported on Linux.
It would not be unreasonable for Apple, or Macromedia, to see the demand, and port their plugins over, charging a small fee in the early days, to recover their costs. As the model is proven, and reasons for using a Linux desktop equal or exceed the reasons not too, more companies will proceed to code for, and/or port to Linux.
Each step has to be taken in context, and appreciated for it's own contribution to the progress and growth of the operating system. I have found that those lamenting the lack of commercial apps such as Dreamweaver, and Games are the same people who refuse to pay for such things when offered. They want all or nothing. From where I sit, they can bugger off. To all those who will refuse to pay for something like this for poorly thought out (if at all) reasons, such as theone your provided, you will have no acceptable beef when the step following this doesn't happen. Each step in the chain requires the one before it.
If you don't have what it takes to take the steps in between, just sit back and wait for everyone else to do everything for you. Be sheep.
Sorry, the comparison betwen this product being worth 20 meaning that all windows has is worth 100 is not a correct comparison.
In this case, I would argue the twenty bucks is providing the convenience of using Linux, and combining that with the convenience of using these plugins without booting into Windows. The comparison does not follow that if it is worth 20USD for me to run Linux, and use this to take advantage of other plugins made for MSWindows, that Windows is thus worth 100USD.
However, there is something to your argument that you, and many, may not have understood.
MS' Focus in marketing is on getting people to belive they are getting value for their expenditure; just as Apple's marketing attmepts to appeal to people who see themselves as beating their own path.
Micorosft must continue to maintain it's chosen image by 'adding value' to the OS. The only way they can do this is to keep adding their other products into it. As such, to keep their OS viable in the market, they must continue to make their products a part of it, or suffer the comparison to better valued OSes.
It was solely based on maintaining their perception of value, that they 'integrated' IE in to Windows. It is likewise the reasons they are now 'integrating' other products into their 'OS'.
The problem is one they have made for themselves. They stake their OS on being one of perceived value, when we have, in fact, reached a perido of time where the value of a computere system is being seen in the applications and service it provides, not solely upon the OS.
Sorry, though your argument be logical, the premises are not true, thus your conclusion is not accurate.
The mistake you made, is to compare today's use of the word 'establishment' with what was comonly used at the time of writing. You are using the term as a noun. At that time, it was not used as a noun. The phrase 'respecting an establishment of religion' is properly understood as 'respecting an act establishing a religion'.
Allow me to post some of the leading documents from the process leading to the BofR.
The House and Senate hoth passed seperate versions, and these ultimately led to the ones that went to the states, and were subsequently ratified and/or denied. Looking at these will demonstrate the intent behind this amendment. Please note the difference in Article numbers is expected, and not a mistake.
From the Senate:
"""
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.
"""
Note here, how it is clear the intent was to avoid a means for the federal government to _establish_ a religion; hence the wording 'establishing articles of faith'. It is likewise clear that they intended to prevent the fedgov from making laws to prohibit religious *practice*.
Now we look to the House proposed amendment:
"""
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
"""
Here, again, we see the concern was the establishment of a state religion at the federal level. In fact, in the amendments proposed by the House, the article regarding the bearing of arms, continues with the rights of Conscience theme illustrated here.
As irony would have it, the very thing you complain about, is the very thing you did. The word 'establishement' back then was used not as a noun, but as a verb, the act of establishing.
:)
In fact, on a related (somewhat) note, those who argue the 2nd Amendment reserved arms to the states, not the people, would be well served of their time to read the original proposals; they are quite useful in seeing the clear intent of the amendment. The 'trick' to understanding these documents is in reading them in the language they were written in, not interpreting them in today's language.
For example, if they had written about 'gay celebrations', you would not conclude they were talking about homo-sexual celebrations, would you? Certainly not, as the term gay meant something entirely different during that period.
It isn't being "paraded around" as a reason to go to Linux. It is being properly billed as a step the removes some of the barriers people have to using Linux. There is a difference.
Many of the people who would switch, but haven't have a few sticking points. This removes a couple of them. Notably, Quicktime, and Shockwave using sites.
Be careful to not assign too more than what people say about these types of things. When I mention MS' dropping support for 'netscape-style plugins', I do not say it will be a big deal to most users. We don't need to get 'most' users to get what we want, or need. We just need a few groups here and there. It will be a big deal to a certain group of users. For some it will be the 'final straw', for others an indication of the future, a future they may not wish to partake of.
The approach is called incrementalism, and is very effective. It is used in politics, and market encroachment. In fact, for those bent on "world Domination", you don't want end-users to migrate en-masse, you want them a group at a time. This would cause a big signal on the opponent radar, triggering a correective response. By obtaining them group by group, and not en masse, we gain a solid footing, and by the time the giant has noticed, he finds himself on the losing side, or at a minimum, on equal terms in the battle.
Each step brings us closser, each group that converts adds to the stability of the movement, the market for vendors, and detracts from the opponent's ranks. Each step raises the question "Why not?" instead of "Why?". Some respond better to the former than the latter.
This plugin product removes another of the answers to "Why not?", not providing an answer to the question of "Why?".
If successful, and I anticipate it will be, it will also be another example of how one can make money in the new world of open source operating systems that Linux is making more acceptable.
Note: Successful here is used not in the sense of 'makes them filthy rich', but rather, makes a profit.
Yeah, nobody pays RedHat for their work, nobody pays VMWare for theirs, and nobody pays for Win4Lin. Yeah, nobody pays anybody for their work on Linux.
How about getting a clue. Linux users will indeed pay for quality work, at reasonable prices. We do not like paying for shoddy work, or even for quality work at outrageously high prices.
Oh, perhaps you mean *you* wouldn't pay for it, and are looking for a way to scapegoat that to everyone.
The fact of the matter is people *will* pay for it. The question of the price-point break is yet to be determined, the question of whether or not people will pay for it has already been answered.
Your question is a very messed up analogy. They are not putting out a format. They (Codeweavers) are not making a format. They are providing a means to run existing plugins on Linux, that were previously only available on Windows. Oh, and by the way, Real charges for their player. Yes, there is a free (monetary) version, but they also sell a commercial version. But I suppose you will make the claim that nobody buys it?
Also, Microsoft charges indirectly for their media player. You have to buy a MS OS to use it.. unless of course you violate their license and run it under WINE.
It is actually, a misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase that leads you to these wanderings.
An analysis of the time and environment the framers had been dealing with will lead you down the path of enlightnment.;)
The establishment clause refers to the establishment of a federal religion. To put it simply, that clause prohibits the Federal Government (though not the states) from creating or maintaining a 'state religion'.
It does nothing to affect whether or not *local* schools can allow religious groups to meet on, or use government facilities. This is something many people forget, or (worse) were never tought. The constitution is a document pertaining in the majority to federal government, not state or local. Schools are, despite misguided attempts otherwise, a state/local concern, not federal.
The freedom of religion clause provides for prohibitions to the federal government, in order to prevent a repeat of the Church of England fiasco. The framers wanted to avoid a Church of the United States. The question of 'jurisdiction' in school and religius matters is first pointed to the 'owner' of the school. If it is a non-federal school, the issue stops being one of constitutional concern, or federal concern. Period.
The next step is to look at state prohibitions. As is obvious, that is not something we can do nationally. If there are no prohibitions at the state level, we drop down to the local (county, municipal) level.
So you see, your quandry regarding the slippery slope to establishment is not neccesary. The establishement cause was embedded to prevent a 'Church of the US', not to keep the state and church behind a wall of total separation. The 'wall of separation' is taken from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson after the adoption of the government prohibitions. A review of said letter will show that there was an understanding present that the point was to prevent the state from usurping the church, as well as prevent the federal government from interfering with churches and religions.
Upon realizing this, you will see that there is no contradiction, and in fact, the latter phrase supports the former. The federal government is not allowed to create a state religion, nor is it allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion by the state citizens.
These are two separate, and mutually supportive prohibitions. One could have a state sponsored religion, but not make it mandatory, thus not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. One could also have no state religion, yet prohibit certain religions, or indeed all, from being freely exercised.
By combining the two, the framers intended, clearly, to maximize opportunity for the individual citizen, and the states, to choose their own religious way.
Thus, we can easily reach the accurate conclusion that the constitution does not prohibit schools from allowing, or even sponsoring religous clubs.
Re:But its not free (as in beer)
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No, you cpmpletely misunderstand the plugin. How about reading the details first?
The plugin provides the means of runningn other plugins. With the crossover plugin, you can then run most non-ActiveX browser plugins.
This is not just a QT plugin. YOu can do many things, such as Shockwave, QT, and many other Windows-only browser plugins with this. In addition to these, you can also use the plugin for viewing various MS attachements, such as MSWord documents, and Excel spreadsheets.
What makes this useful, is that MS is trying to get rid of all non-activeX plugins in their newer browser. There are many die-hard Windows fans that are quite upset with this. This provides another opportunity for the disgruntled to see there are options. As for the price, come on. This is not twenty bucks to use QuickTime. This is twenty bucks to use a wide variety of plugins.
Given the lack of accurate information in the parent post, it is not an 'interesting' post anymore than other misinformation is interesting. It needs moderated back down.
"We the people buying software should be allowed to choose what we th9ink is best, and should not have our choices of software dictated to us from Washington."
I agree. I do not want these dictates coming down from Redmond, Washington either.
AIUI, and my local IP person says, re: work for hire copyright:
Unless the contract expressly gives the employer the copyright, you still retain it; not the oteher way around.
The 250 is for the newer, low-end board, but to get one with SCSI, you will NOT be paying 300, but will instead be paying >400. The non-SCSI server aimed board is still at 440+:(
Once you've formatted the partition, and loaded the appropriate FS driver, you don't =NEED= to care what the underlying filesystem is. There is NO DIFFERENCE!
You have never administered an enterprise level server, have you? There is a difference. The various filesystems handle different situations in ways that differentiate them.
For example,/etc, or a mail/news spool partition, will perform better on a ResierFS system, as it is designed to work better in this case. Got a directory with fifteen thousand (15000) files in it? Takes longer on ext-anything than it does on ResierFS, or XFS.
Going to have a few hundred very large files? Generally speaking, avoid ResierFS, and go for XFS or perhaps ext[23].
The filesystem does matter a lot more than you think, because they handle things differently.
No difference from the perspective of a user? Puhhlease. I have newbie (to computers in toto) users that tend to put everything in their home directory. Once they start getting up to a few thousand files, ext[23] slows down noticeably. They notice a difference. When the cat manages to hit the switch on the power strip, and they are not waiting for ext2 to fsck, they notice a difference. It matters even to users. Because Filesystems precisely do not all behave the same way.
Honestly, bero, your comment is a bit vague. My ResierFS fs was left intact when I upgraded from windows98 to windows2k.;)
Seriously though, the important aspect is whether or not it can recognize and utilize/usr/var and friends on ReiserFS. If I can upgrade a system that has/usr or fiends on ResierFS, I'll complain less. If in addition additional checks in ReiserFS are turned OFF, I will complain even less. When I can install to either ResierFS, ext3, or ext2, I'll stop complaining abou that.:)
Then I'll "just" complain about the poor RAID issues in the installer. If you want to know about those, I can send you a private mail.
Oh, and in the event that no others do so, thank you for being on this public forum. As opposed to the lack of representation by other vendors that shall remain nameless...
RedHat should support upgrades and ReiserFS would make that impossible as ext2 could not be upgraded to ReiserFS.
The implication you make, namely that supporting ResierFS would make upgrading impossible, is simply not true. You do not have to convert filesystems to do an upgrade. Certainly, as it stands now, RH does not support upgrades for those who took the trouble to put any important (ie. non/home) partitions, despite the fact that their kernel can recognize and use ResierFS, even though they chose to slow it down by compiling it with the debugging turned on.
As far as 'taking away choice', I think it is wrong for any distribution to not support the filsesystems in the kernel. It is clear that RH does not want users to use ResierFS. As far as the "maybe they do not want to deal with ReiserFS in support" argument, it does not fly. In a support contract you can specify what you do and do not support. Fact of the matter is, most users of RH do not use RH for their support, so the support argument is limited to contractual support; which has been dealt with above.
IMO, they have no reasonable excuse for not providing the option to use/upgrade ReiserFS installs.
The partition type is the same for XFS as it is for ext2: Linux. I would assume thet PM only cares about the partition type and low level data, not caring about the FS on said partition, though I could be wrong.
Ext2, ext3, XFS, and ReiserFS all use Type 83; Linux.
So you should arge that BSD be called BSDL/BSD and that Perl be called PAL/Perl, right? After all, they use those licenses. How about we rename Apache, Jakarta, and everything else?
Hey maybe we should start forcing everyone to name their product/.
Now seriously, to be intellectually honest, you would need to carry your 'argument' along to other products as well.
And yes, Stallman has _Zero_ authority to make his demand, though it is Trademark at issue, not copyright. This is probably one of the first times, if not the only time, where one Trademark owner is trying to get anotehr to change theirs to include his.
Linux and GNU are separate trademarks. Combining them is dilution, and thus legally, if not morally, needs to be fought in order to maintain the trademark.
In the use of the Linux Kernel with GNU Tools; GNU tools are entirely USELESS without the kernel. Period. To follow your reasoning (such that it is), you should call it Linux/GNU. What good are compilers and bash, etc. if there is no kernel to run them on?
I've seen BSD boxen with GNU tools, where is RMS' indignation over it not being called GNU/BSD? Oh (no offense to BSDers), that's right, BSD isn't the media's current darling.
Again, you are simply not paying attention. *YOU* are not modifying the content for your personal use. Someone ELSE is making a profit modifying my content for others to read.
Simple common sense applies, which you apparently forget. If you want to splice in ads in your VHS tape for your personal viewing (yeah, pull the other leg), fine. But the moment you charge companies for putting those ads in, and then display the modified content to others, you are no longer in private use.
In the situation we are talking about, YOU are not modifying the content for your personal use, they (or in the example, I) are modifying it for your use, and making a profit off of it. That is copyright violation when done without permission.
According to your 'reasoning', a movie theatre can splice ads and product placements into a movie, charge the beneficiaries of it, and then display it for others.
Bzzzt. Try again. Try paying attention this time. Sure you can do whatever you want with a book when you are the sole reader, but when you then attempt to make a profit off of it, by selling it to others, or selling modifications of it for other people, you have gone out of the realm of personal use. If I were to sell a service whereupon I modified video content, I would be in violation. Not you, the intended recipient, me, the entity doing it.
Incomparable. Would you favor a cable/tv station sueing you for getting up and walking into the kitchen during the commercials? Hey, how about advertisers set it up so that people in certain cities *HAVE* to sit there, with their eyes open, and watch the commercial they put on the screen,no changing channels, no going to the head, no turning off the tv, or hitting mute, turning down the volume, nothing.
There is a very large difference between an end-user/viewer refusing to see something, and a third party modifying the content of the presentation.
You have the right to not look at my writings, but you do not have the right to modify them, and place advertisements in them, especially by embedding links within them, without my expreess permission. To do so is copyright violation.
Some analogies are incorrect, and bad. Your happens to be one of them.
It is a violation of copyright to modify another's work for presentation, without permission. it is not a violation of copyright to NOT watch something. If you think the latter is the same as the former, march your butt down and put it in jail, since I can guarantee you, you are violating at this very moment, and will in the next one; for there are hundreds or thousands of commercials you are avoiding.
Consider this:
In today's movies we see an increasing number of corporate ads. We see them in product placement. Like the "Isuzu" in Misson To Mars. You can bet your butt that Isuzu paid something the get that placement.
Now, instead, let us apply this link-insertion crap to the movies. Now, you spend some effort and time to produce a movie. Then, the viewers in Seattle, see product placements in there you never intended, due to some cool technology that was installed in the projector. So now, that cool car you designed specifically for your movie, has a Ford Oval emblazoned on it, or a Chevy Bowtie, or whatever.
Picture how different that makes things. *THAT* is what we are talking about here. We are decidedly NOT talking about closing your eyes to an advert, we are talking about the adverts being placed there wihtout permission, alteration of the content, however slight, without authorization.
And as far as the opt-out goes, that is horsecrap too. Spam is spam, whether it resided in an email box, or an unauthorized link in a webpage.
Furthermore, this, just as with MS's attempt was to do, places the burdern of keeping the offender from doing it, on the author, not the offender. Hey, I know, how about we make it the victims responsiblity to stop the burglar, by telling them they do not want to be burglarized? No, the burden rests on the one who would be violating the copyright.
This does not even cover the aspect of advertising for a competitor on your own damned site, or links on your personal page to another telling everyon that you are a greedy, slimiy, bastard (not, of course saying you are, just providing an example).
For Redhat, the idea of building a database would be a bad for bussiness on their part. First off, they would piss off Oracle and IBM and we need their support to move linux to the enterprise. Second, Redhat finally made a profit and why develop something with no instant return? If enterprise users need something powerfull Oracle or DB2 would be there. right
Not quite.
I recall reading an interview lately with one of the big whigs at Oracle lately. In it, he welcomed this move from Redhat. According to him, it provides and allows for more and more DB users to progress to oracle without haveing used MS. Remember, oracle and MS aren't exactly taking warm showers together in the wee hours of the morning. I wouldn't be suprised to learn of Oracle helping out with the project.
You are correct in that unless PSQL grows in capacity and performance, the sequence would lead users to Oracle. Also, though, as I recall, just ahout all (if not ALL) of the large commercial RDBMS Vendors prohibit the publication of benchmarks, not just Oracle. Last I knew Oracle and MS Both did this.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, that extra machine running windows costs more than 20 bucks.
Your question is a non sequiter. Windows would not be selling this, as it is NOT something to run on their OS. it also begs the question. If MS was selling something like this, they would be making Linux apps. If MS was making Linux apps, there would be a much larger array of apps on Linux, not just from MS, but from other companies. As a result, there would be little, if any need for such an app.
I would not buy it from MS for other reasons. Now, if they were contributing useful code to the WINE project, I'd consider it.
Windows is more than 20 bucks. A seperate machine for windows is more than 20 bucks.
The price is for convenience. The convenience of NOT having the second machine, or NOT rebooting to Windows just to view a quicktime or shockwave, or MS Word/Excell/PowerPoint file, is what you are buying when you buy the Crossover Plugin.
When buying it, you are also supporting the model, the idea, and the company that contributes code, and makes appropriate use of open source. In turn, you are providing the evidence other companies need to make applications available on Linux. By purchasing Crossover for the measly 20 bucks, you are showing there is indeed, a demand for the plugins to be supported on Linux.
It would not be unreasonable for Apple, or Macromedia, to see the demand, and port their plugins over, charging a small fee in the early days, to recover their costs. As the model is proven, and reasons for using a Linux desktop equal or exceed the reasons not too, more companies will proceed to code for, and/or port to Linux.
Each step has to be taken in context, and appreciated for it's own contribution to the progress and growth of the operating system. I have found that those lamenting the lack of commercial apps such as Dreamweaver, and Games are the same people who refuse to pay for such things when offered. They want all or nothing. From where I sit, they can bugger off. To all those who will refuse to pay for something like this for poorly thought out (if at all) reasons, such as theone your provided, you will have no acceptable beef when the step following this doesn't happen. Each step in the chain requires the one before it.
If you don't have what it takes to take the steps in between, just sit back and wait for everyone else to do everything for you. Be sheep.
Sorry, the comparison betwen this product being worth 20 meaning that all windows has is worth 100 is not a correct comparison.
In this case, I would argue the twenty bucks is providing the convenience of using Linux, and combining that with the convenience of using these plugins without booting into Windows. The comparison does not follow that if it is worth 20USD for me to run Linux, and use this to take advantage of other plugins made for MSWindows, that Windows is thus worth 100USD.
However, there is something to your argument that you, and many, may not have understood.
MS' Focus in marketing is on getting people to belive they are getting value for their expenditure; just as Apple's marketing attmepts to appeal to people who see themselves as beating their own path.
Micorosft must continue to maintain it's chosen image by 'adding value' to the OS. The only way they can do this is to keep adding their other products into it. As such, to keep their OS viable in the market, they must continue to make their products a part of it, or suffer the comparison to better valued OSes.
It was solely based on maintaining their perception of value, that they 'integrated' IE in to Windows. It is likewise the reasons they are now 'integrating' other products into their 'OS'.
The problem is one they have made for themselves. They stake their OS on being one of perceived value, when we have, in fact, reached a perido of time where the value of a computere system is being seen in the applications and service it provides, not solely upon the OS.
Ah, my mistake.
Sorry, though your argument be logical, the premises are not true, thus your conclusion is not accurate.
:)
The mistake you made, is to compare today's use of the word 'establishment' with what was comonly used at the time of writing. You are using the term as a noun. At that time, it was not used as a noun. The phrase 'respecting an establishment of religion' is properly understood as 'respecting an act establishing a religion'.
Allow me to post some of the leading documents from the process leading to the BofR.
The House and Senate hoth passed seperate versions, and these ultimately led to the ones that went to the states, and were subsequently ratified and/or denied. Looking at these will demonstrate the intent behind this amendment. Please note the difference in Article numbers is expected, and not a mistake.
From the Senate:
"""
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.
"""
Note here, how it is clear the intent was to avoid a means for the federal government to _establish_ a religion; hence the wording 'establishing articles of faith'. It is likewise clear that they intended to prevent the fedgov from making laws to prohibit religious *practice*.
Now we look to the House proposed amendment:
"""
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
"""
Here, again, we see the concern was the establishment of a state religion at the federal level. In fact, in the amendments proposed by the House, the article regarding the bearing of arms, continues with the rights of Conscience theme illustrated here.
As irony would have it, the very thing you complain about, is the very thing you did. The word 'establishement' back then was used not as a noun, but as a verb, the act of establishing.
In fact, on a related (somewhat) note, those who argue the 2nd Amendment reserved arms to the states, not the people, would be well served of their time to read the original proposals; they are quite useful in seeing the clear intent of the amendment. The 'trick' to understanding these documents is in reading them in the language they were written in, not interpreting them in today's language.
For example, if they had written about 'gay celebrations', you would not conclude they were talking about homo-sexual celebrations, would you? Certainly not, as the term gay meant something entirely different during that period.
It isn't being "paraded around" as a reason to go to Linux. It is being properly billed as a step the removes some of the barriers people have to using Linux. There is a difference.
Many of the people who would switch, but haven't have a few sticking points. This removes a couple of them. Notably, Quicktime, and Shockwave using sites.
Be careful to not assign too more than what people say about these types of things. When I mention MS' dropping support for 'netscape-style plugins', I do not say it will be a big deal to most users. We don't need to get 'most' users to get what we want, or need. We just need a few groups here and there. It will be a big deal to a certain group of users. For some it will be the 'final straw', for others an indication of the future, a future they may not wish to partake of.
The approach is called incrementalism, and is very effective. It is used in politics, and market encroachment. In fact, for those bent on "world Domination", you don't want end-users to migrate en-masse, you want them a group at a time. This would cause a big signal on the opponent radar, triggering a correective response. By obtaining them group by group, and not en masse, we gain a solid footing, and by the time the giant has noticed, he finds himself on the losing side, or at a minimum, on equal terms in the battle.
Each step brings us closser, each group that converts adds to the stability of the movement, the market for vendors, and detracts from the opponent's ranks. Each step raises the question "Why not?" instead of "Why?". Some respond better to the former than the latter.
This plugin product removes another of the answers to "Why not?", not providing an answer to the question of "Why?".
If successful, and I anticipate it will be, it will also be another example of how one can make money in the new world of open source operating systems that Linux is making more acceptable.
Note: Successful here is used not in the sense of 'makes them filthy rich', but rather, makes a profit.
Yeah, nobody pays RedHat for their work, nobody pays VMWare for theirs, and nobody pays for Win4Lin. Yeah, nobody pays anybody for their work on Linux.
.. unless of course you violate their license and run it under WINE.
How about getting a clue. Linux users will indeed pay for quality work, at reasonable prices. We do not like paying for shoddy work, or even for quality work at outrageously high prices.
Oh, perhaps you mean *you* wouldn't pay for it, and are looking for a way to scapegoat that to everyone.
The fact of the matter is people *will* pay for it. The question of the price-point break is yet to be determined, the question of whether or not people will pay for it has already been answered.
Your question is a very messed up analogy. They are not putting out a format. They (Codeweavers) are not making a format. They are providing a means to run existing plugins on Linux, that were previously only available on Windows. Oh, and by the way, Real charges for their player. Yes, there is a free (monetary) version, but they also sell a commercial version. But I suppose you will make the claim that nobody buys it?
Also, Microsoft charges indirectly for their media player. You have to buy a MS OS to use it
"..yeahhh he come to boff the rooster..."
It is actually, a misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase that leads you to these wanderings.
;)
An analysis of the time and environment the framers had been dealing with will lead you down the path of enlightnment.
The establishment clause refers to the establishment of a federal religion. To put it simply, that clause prohibits the Federal Government (though not the states) from creating or maintaining a 'state religion'.
It does nothing to affect whether or not *local* schools can allow religious groups to meet on, or use government facilities. This is something many people forget, or (worse) were never tought. The constitution is a document pertaining in the majority to federal government, not state or local. Schools are, despite misguided attempts otherwise, a state/local concern, not federal.
The freedom of religion clause provides for prohibitions to the federal government, in order to prevent a repeat of the Church of England fiasco. The framers wanted to avoid a Church of the United States. The question of 'jurisdiction' in school and religius matters is first pointed to the 'owner' of the school. If it is a non-federal school, the issue stops being one of constitutional concern, or federal concern. Period.
The next step is to look at state prohibitions. As is obvious, that is not something we can do nationally. If there are no prohibitions at the state level, we drop down to the local (county, municipal) level.
So you see, your quandry regarding the slippery slope to establishment is not neccesary. The establishement cause was embedded to prevent a 'Church of the US', not to keep the state and church behind a wall of total separation. The 'wall of separation' is taken from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson after the adoption of the government prohibitions. A review of said letter will show that there was an understanding present that the point was to prevent the state from usurping the church, as well as prevent the federal government from interfering with churches and religions.
Upon realizing this, you will see that there is no contradiction, and in fact, the latter phrase supports the former. The federal government is not allowed to create a state religion, nor is it allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion by the state citizens.
These are two separate, and mutually supportive prohibitions. One could have a state sponsored religion, but not make it mandatory, thus not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. One could also have no state religion, yet prohibit certain religions, or indeed all, from being freely exercised.
By combining the two, the framers intended, clearly, to maximize opportunity for the individual citizen, and the states, to choose their own religious way.
Thus, we can easily reach the accurate conclusion that the constitution does not prohibit schools from allowing, or even sponsoring religous clubs.
No, you cpmpletely misunderstand the plugin. How about reading the details first?
The plugin provides the means of runningn other plugins. With the crossover plugin, you can then run most non-ActiveX browser plugins.
This is not just a QT plugin. YOu can do many things, such as Shockwave, QT, and many other Windows-only browser plugins with this. In addition to these, you can also use the plugin for viewing various MS attachements, such as MSWord documents, and Excel spreadsheets.
What makes this useful, is that MS is trying to get rid of all non-activeX plugins in their newer browser. There are many die-hard Windows fans that are quite upset with this. This provides another opportunity for the disgruntled to see there are options. As for the price, come on. This is not twenty bucks to use QuickTime. This is twenty bucks to use a wide variety of plugins.
Given the lack of accurate information in the parent post, it is not an 'interesting' post anymore than other misinformation is interesting. It needs moderated back down.
Apparently in some of the letters:
"We the people buying software should be allowed to choose what we th9ink is best, and should not have our choices of software dictated to us from Washington."
I agree. I do not want these dictates coming down from Redmond, Washington either.
AIUI, and my local IP person says, re: work for hire copyright:
Unless the contract expressly gives the employer the copyright, you still retain it; not the oteher way around.
YMMV
Hey, don't forget:
:(
The 250 is for the newer, low-end board, but to get one with SCSI, you will NOT be paying 300, but will instead be paying >400. The non-SCSI server aimed board is still at 440+
Quit assuming, and do a little (ever so little) bit of research. Ext2 did not have a 2Gb file limit, the VFS layer in the kernel pre-2.4 did.
You have never administered an enterprise level server, have you? There is a difference. The various filesystems handle different situations in ways that differentiate them.
For example,
Going to have a few hundred very large files? Generally speaking, avoid ResierFS, and go for XFS or perhaps ext[23].
The filesystem does matter a lot more than you think, because they handle things differently.
No difference from the perspective of a user? Puhhlease. I have newbie (to computers in toto) users that tend to put everything in their home directory. Once they start getting up to a few thousand files, ext[23] slows down noticeably. They notice a difference. When the cat manages to hit the switch on the power strip, and they are not waiting for ext2 to fsck, they notice a difference. It matters even to users. Because Filesystems precisely do not all behave the same way.
Yes, but will it handle /usr as ResierFS?
;)
/usr /var and friends on ReiserFS. If I can upgrade a system that has /usr or fiends on ResierFS, I'll complain less. If in addition additional checks in ReiserFS are turned OFF, I will complain even less. When I can install to either ResierFS, ext3, or ext2, I'll stop complaining abou that. :)
...
Honestly, bero, your comment is a bit vague. My ResierFS fs was left intact when I upgraded from windows98 to windows2k.
Seriously though, the important aspect is whether or not it can recognize and utilize
Then I'll "just" complain about the poor RAID issues in the installer. If you want to know about those, I can send you a private mail.
Oh, and in the event that no others do so, thank you for being on this public forum. As opposed to the lack of representation by other vendors that shall remain nameless
The implication you make, namely that supporting ResierFS would make upgrading impossible, is simply not true. You do not have to convert filesystems to do an upgrade. Certainly, as it stands now, RH does not support upgrades for those who took the trouble to put any important (ie. non
As far as 'taking away choice', I think it is wrong for any distribution to not support the filsesystems in the kernel. It is clear that RH does not want users to use ResierFS. As far as the "maybe they do not want to deal with ReiserFS in support" argument, it does not fly. In a support contract you can specify what you do and do not support. Fact of the matter is, most users of RH do not use RH for their support, so the support argument is limited to contractual support; which has been dealt with above.
IMO, they have no reasonable excuse for not providing the option to use/upgrade ReiserFS installs.
The partition type is the same for XFS as it is for ext2: Linux. I would assume thet PM only cares about the partition type and low level data, not caring about the FS on said partition, though I could be wrong.
Ext2, ext3, XFS, and ReiserFS all use Type 83; Linux.
So you should arge that BSD be called BSDL/BSD and that Perl be called PAL/Perl, right? After all, they use those licenses. How about we rename Apache, Jakarta, and everything else?
/.
Hey maybe we should start forcing everyone to name their product
Now seriously, to be intellectually honest, you would need to carry your 'argument' along to other products as well.
And yes, Stallman has _Zero_ authority to make his demand, though it is Trademark at issue, not copyright. This is probably one of the first times, if not the only time, where one Trademark owner is trying to get anotehr to change theirs to include his.
Linux and GNU are separate trademarks. Combining them is dilution, and thus legally, if not morally, needs to be fought in order to maintain the trademark.
In the use of the Linux Kernel with GNU Tools; GNU tools are entirely USELESS without the kernel. Period. To follow your reasoning (such that it is), you should call it Linux/GNU. What good are compilers and bash, etc. if there is no kernel to run them on?
I've seen BSD boxen with GNU tools, where is RMS' indignation over it not being called GNU/BSD? Oh (no offense to BSDers), that's right, BSD isn't the media's current darling.
The fix to the FDA taking ten years to approve something lies in fixing the FDA, not in extending the protection.
Again, you are simply not paying attention. *YOU* are not modifying the content for your personal use. Someone ELSE is making a profit modifying my content for others to read.
Simple common sense applies, which you apparently forget. If you want to splice in ads in your VHS tape for your personal viewing (yeah, pull the other leg), fine. But the moment you charge companies for putting those ads in, and then display the modified content to others, you are no longer in private use.
In the situation we are talking about, YOU are not modifying the content for your personal use, they (or in the example, I) are modifying it for your use, and making a profit off of it. That is copyright violation when done without permission.
According to your 'reasoning', a movie theatre can splice ads and product placements into a movie, charge the beneficiaries of it, and then display it for others.
Bzzzt. Try again. Try paying attention this time. Sure you can do whatever you want with a book when you are the sole reader, but when you then attempt to make a profit off of it, by selling it to others, or selling modifications of it for other people, you have gone out of the realm of personal use. If I were to sell a service whereupon I modified video content, I would be in violation. Not you, the intended recipient, me, the entity doing it.
Incomparable. Would you favor a cable/tv station sueing you for getting up and walking into the kitchen during the commercials? Hey, how about advertisers set it up so that people in certain cities *HAVE* to sit there, with their eyes open, and watch the commercial they put on the screen,no changing channels, no going to the head, no turning off the tv, or hitting mute, turning down the volume, nothing.
There is a very large difference between an end-user/viewer refusing to see something, and a third party modifying the content of the presentation.
You have the right to not look at my writings, but you do not have the right to modify them, and place advertisements in them, especially by embedding links within them, without my expreess permission. To do so is copyright violation.
Some analogies are incorrect, and bad. Your happens to be one of them.
It is a violation of copyright to modify another's work for presentation, without permission. it is not a violation of copyright to NOT watch something. If you think the latter is the same as the former, march your butt down and put it in jail, since I can guarantee you, you are violating at this very moment, and will in the next one; for there are hundreds or thousands of commercials you are avoiding.
Consider this:
In today's movies we see an increasing number of corporate ads. We see them in product placement. Like the "Isuzu" in Misson To Mars. You can bet your butt that Isuzu paid something the get that placement.
Now, instead, let us apply this link-insertion crap to the movies. Now, you spend some effort and time to produce a movie. Then, the viewers in Seattle, see product placements in there you never intended, due to some cool technology that was installed in the projector. So now, that cool car you designed specifically for your movie, has a Ford Oval emblazoned on it, or a Chevy Bowtie, or whatever.
Picture how different that makes things. *THAT* is what we are talking about here. We are decidedly NOT talking about closing your eyes to an advert, we are talking about the adverts being placed there wihtout permission, alteration of the content, however slight, without authorization.
And as far as the opt-out goes, that is horsecrap too. Spam is spam, whether it resided in an email box, or an unauthorized link in a webpage.
Furthermore, this, just as with MS's attempt was to do, places the burdern of keeping the offender from doing it, on the author, not the offender. Hey, I know, how about we make it the victims responsiblity to stop the burglar, by telling them they do not want to be burglarized? No, the burden rests on the one who would be violating the copyright.
This does not even cover the aspect of advertising for a competitor on your own damned site, or links on your personal page to another telling everyon that you are a greedy, slimiy, bastard (not, of course saying you are, just providing an example).
Hrm ... given the source of your inspiration, "Python code" woudl have been more apropos.
What? You honestly believe that all that profit they make comes from their software?.
Try again.
Not quite.
I recall reading an interview lately with one of the big whigs at Oracle lately. In it, he welcomed this move from Redhat. According to him, it provides and allows for more and more DB users to progress to oracle without haveing used MS. Remember, oracle and MS aren't exactly taking warm showers together in the wee hours of the morning. I wouldn't be suprised to learn of Oracle helping out with the project.
You are correct in that unless PSQL grows in capacity and performance, the sequence would lead users to Oracle. Also, though, as I recall, just ahout all (if not ALL) of the large commercial RDBMS Vendors prohibit the publication of benchmarks, not just Oracle. Last I knew Oracle and MS Both did this.