If Apple does not defend their copyrights, they lose all ability to use them in the future. Period.
That's just plain not true.
Just because he didn't pay a dime to get access to the software doesn't implicitly mean he got the legal right to redistribute that software to every Tom, Dick, & Harry that connects to his.torrent.
No one is saying he had that right.
It sickens me that this guy may end up with a life or death decision some day. His lack of foresight speaks volumes about his judgement
What foresight? Do you really think it's rational to assume you'd get sued by Apple, when no one has *ever* been sued for setting up a torrent? And you certainly can't compare a non-life-or-death decision with a life-or-death one. Do you litter? Would that somehow preclude you from diagnosing cancer?
Then again, you did say:
Since we're talking about magical fantasy land
So maybe your entire post was meant to be nonsense?
Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended.
Yes, that's the way things are, but it's not the way things have to be. Apple could have chosen not to sue him.
In Apple's defence, they played this very well. They sued, then settled for what everyone is assuming are reasonable terms (and not $10k or whatever the RIAA suits have been). The fear people had was that Apple was just going to act like the greedy bully that corporate America tends to create.
Had Sunny driven drunk
That's an awful comparison. Drunk driving kills, maims, and is an all around public danger. Copying a pre-release program might cost Apple a couple of ADC sales.
What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.
I disagree with you on the magnitude of this, although I agree there are differences. When you click "I Agree" it's not equivalent (I'm speaking about it being truly equal, not just legally equal, which it may or may not be) to reading it, understanding it, and knowingly agreeing to all of the terms. Likewise, with buying a CD, you are legally agreeing to the terms of copyright law, which include "agreeing" not to make copies for people.
You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.
Good advice, but I don't think it's fair to place all of the burden onto the end user. I don't mean removing all liability of the consumer. Just that it makes it far to easy to prey on those who don't really understand the legal consequences of their actions.
In comparing this to Apple's and the RIAA's actions, I think Apple struck a fairly acceptable balance--they didn't ream the guys, but didn't let them off scot-free either. The RIAA really shouldn't be, essentially, stealing $10k from people who are just doing what everyone's doing (I know, just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right, but if everyone's in a gang, you at least know killing people is wrong, but how many people really think copying music on the internet is wrong?).
It seems like there would be a way to apply by mail.
TFA doesn't point to a mail-in form, or even mention the existance of one. It does, however, state, "You will submit the application online."
If not, then this doesn't matter, since you already must purchase (or acquire by other means) a computer.
No one is complaining here that you have to buy or acquire a computer, but that you have to buy or acquire a Windows computer. Not only did you not RTFA, but you didn't even RTF slashdot summary.
So, exactly how many planes have crashed due to cellphone or WiFi usage?
Planes don't crash when they fly in areas that have radio towers, they don't crash when flying under satellites, they don't crash when people "accidentally" leave their cellphone one. But, of course, in the lab, when you turn on a cellphone right next to a radio receiver, you get little blips, oscillations, or otherwise see some minor effects. Yet it's absolutely clear that these effects aren't important in the real world. Is it because the radio sources are located tens of meters from the equipment? Is it because the effects are minimal (the device doesn't need the tolerances that the variations on your scope shows)? Is it because you cherry pick your results (well, if the system is hit by lightning and there are four cellphones equadistantly distributed around the plane at 25m, and they ring in order, the plane will think its headed backwards for 300ms)?
When people believe a theory that contradicts reality, we call it superstition.
You can quote your own ancedotal evidence
And you quote yours. Who wins in this discussion? How about the person whose claims actually match reality?
Now, if you have examples of planes being downed by a cellphone, I'm all ears. Let's hear some facts that turn your superstition into reality, if you're so convinced.
Running off isn't going to help you'll find a cop on your doorstep waiting for you to get home.
I *highly* doubt that. The clerk won't be able to describe *at all* what was stolen (since nothing was) there won't be a surveillance tape showing a shoplifting (since none occurred). I'm no expert, but I have to imagine it'll be extremely tough to get a search warrant under those circumstances. And without that warrant, what would be the point?
Sorry, but none of the things you listed are trolls.
Don't be daft. I didn't say they were all trolls, I said they were some of the highlights of trolls, flamebaits and offtopics. It's absolutely certain that some the posts were from ignorance (duh, I even said that). It's just as certain that some of them were blatant trolls.
So any one of the above can be (and usually are)
Wait a minute, if they "usually" are, doesn't that mean some aren't? Wouldn't that make them prime troll candidates?
honest gripes or questions about Macs
Uninformed gripes, and very few honest questions.
Instead, of course, most Mac people take every post as a personal offense and moderate everything down. That attitude is immature, annoying and ruins the slashdot experience for many people.
Because it's like a bunch of hip-hop lovin' teenage suburbanites complaining about how Beethoven's 9th is lame and old and how come he's never on MTV Cribs if he's so good?
If a post just says, "Apple is the new MS" and that's it, or says, "I'm debating between OS X and XP, so I installed Linux." or "$129 for a point release? If MS did this, you'd all complain about it." aren't substantive posts, just complete idiocy.
At least during the MS-Linux flamewars you can see high moderated posts from each side of the fence which makes the discussion fun to read and sometimes even informative.
That's because everyone's familiar enough with Windows to have a valid opinion, and most everyone who's switched from Windows to Linux has to have some modicum of sense, and familiarity with both Linux and Windows. To berate Apple, all it takes is some insecurity and flawed perceptions. Reread my list and tell me if any of those complaints stand up to even a minimal level of scrutiny. Those posts aren't made in the form of a valid question or inquiry, they're made as an uninformed attack against something they know nothing about. That should be modded up? They're the equivalent of "I didn't RTFA, but is the article submitter retarded or something?"
Honest questions about Apple quite often get modded Interesting, and posts critical of Apple's DRM, their suing of ThinkSecret and AppleInsider, etc, are often modded Informative. Posts complaining that OS X doesn't have games, or that you can run Linux and be free instead just don't add anything to the conversation.
A story about Apple announcing a major set of application updates at a major tradeshow on apple.slashdot.org?!? And that doesn't make sense to you?
Slashdot posts stories whenever Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Woz, RMS, or Bill Gates sneezes. This is by design. News for Nerds, and all.
What's Ubuntu's next animal release name? What's the latest on the BitKeeper saga? Is Tiger showing up early in stores anywhere? When does the next Star Trek series start? Who's the new NASA administrator?
If a site that purports to be news for nerds, and doesn't cover those topics, *that's* when there's something to complain about.
I don't know if its on the level of the old Bell Labs
I know what you mean. On the one hand, we've got the transistor and UNIX and on the other there's "Clippy" and those menus that keep hiding their menu items.
It's really a close call!
It might not be the most "innovative" software, but it works just fine for most tasks.
Yup, that would be pretty much the opposite of innovation.
The funny thing is yours was the pro Microsoft post.:-)
just wanted to point out that I have been on slashdot for a while now, and I have *never* seen a thread with so many posts moderated as "troll", "flamebait" or "offtopic".
That's because there are many posts that are trolls, flamebait, and offtopic. These are the same ol' ignorant things over and over again...
Some highlights:
Apple is just like MS, only smaller!
$129? For a point release?!
Forget OS X, install Linux!
200 features? I counted like, 3, tops.
Spotlight? How lame, "ooh, I can search now."
The only thing missing is the "1-button mouse" complaint.
if they were discussing microsoft
But they aren't. Context really is important. It's fully rational to treat MS cynically. That's just the sort of company MS is. That's like saying a post that questioned IBM's open sourcing of a program is just as valid as a post questioning MS's doing the same. IBM has proven they really do support FS/OSS, while MS has truly open sourced all of something like two trivial things.
Apple products truly do get better with each new release. MS products, for the most part, just get different. Why? Is it Jobs vs Gates? Is it underdog vs monopoly? Is it good vs evil? Probably some of each, and much more, I don't know. But time and again, the two companies really do act in very different ways, deserving very different opinions.
However I do have a goodly bit of management experience
Yet in an act of generosity, I continued reading...
Does that statement reflect what was originally intended? Of course not but this is the era of the spin and you can bet that they will use it in whatever way they can.
One of the things that makes FS/OSS so attractive is that things aren't about spin (yes, there is always going to be some spin, but nothing like in your world) but about the code and about technical excellence.
*If* Linus is being an ass[*], then we *all* benefit by calling him out on it. If we don't, then he'll just continue to be an ass. It's the way we get things done.
It's something of a matter of pride that we don't suffer fools gladly--and everyone takes their turn as the fool, even Torvalds (who once did a similar calling out of a certain Professor, over a decade ago).
[*]I think he is, but I think he's doing it because he's a polite guy and doesn't want to 'spit' on the guy who has 'sort of' donated some software to the Linux developers. Unfortunately this 'donation' is really just a PR stunt, as is apparent by the way this fiasco has played out. What BitMovers has done is essentially donated money (in the form of 'gratis' software) for Linus to use, but donated no code whatsoever.
In an odd sort of parallel, this is not unlike the incident with a printer that started RMS down the road to GNU--except that in this case, Linus is telling us we shouldn't try to fix the printer driver ourselves.
What you are saying is that people just use 'lots' because they are inexperienced, ignorant, or poorly educated with regards to scale. I think most people can be taught to see the differences in numbers up to infinity. It just requires critical thinking and a basic understanding of numbers (no complex math, just knowledge up to understanding 10 is 10x larger than 1, 1,000,000 is 10x larger than 100,000, and 1E32 is 10x larger than 1E31).
I don't mean to say that most people will be able to 'visualize' 10 million light years, but that they can learn to compare that distance with 1 million light years, and not just think 'lots'.
You answered (sort of) the way people are now, but not so much why they are the way they are. Why aren't people taught to think critically? I think the answer to *that* question is far more interesting and far more important (and also what I think the OP meant when asking why people make such a big deal over things that tend to happen only once over many millions of years).
It's fair to note that *I* didn't answer that question either, but I'll give a few thoughts:
Cultural apathy towards learning
Political/ideological opposition to quality government education
Control of the masses (if you can't think for yourself, you'll rely on others to think for you, and will do what they demand if you're sufficiently frightened)
I just can't help but notice how non-objective this site is.
On slashdot, the users submit (and thus, author) stories. They aren't generally schooled in the intricacies of journalism. It's not fair to expect 'professional' journalistic practices from them.
As unfair as it is to expect standards never stated nor implied, the comparison to Fox News is especially bad. Fox outright lies about their objectivity. Most people don't hate Fox News because of their conservative bias, but because they try to pass it off as fair and balanced.
This is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Nerds don't tend to suffer poor software gladly.
Last, it was obvious that IE would be the worst of the bunch. Some other article could just as easily have said, "Obviously, the Perl version was slower," or "But obviously, the RIAA continues to cripple their music with DRM." Which are roughly equivalent in their subjective way of communicating objective truth.
Linus is Willy Wonka, and the rest of the kernel developers are Oompa Loompas?
What has me confused isn't so much that I think that that's true, but that it just seems so right somehow.
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo I've got another puzzle for you. Oompa Loompa doompadah dee If you are wise you will listen to me.
Who do you blame when your software goes closed, The source is kept secret, so nobody knows? Blaming the user is such a shame You know exactly who's to blame: The closed software proprietor!
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah If you're use GNU then you will go far. You will live in freedom too Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do.
well, he did clearly answer (as in, exactly the way you want, though perhaps not the same question you wanted an answer to) "Yes, you were wrong" to your own comment
The problem is that it's not clear that that's what he meant. Given the continuing ambiguity, I don't think it's unreasonable to request a definitive answer. You know, like when a kid answers "yes" to, "did you take out the trash?" and he really means he did it last week, not today, you want him to state explicitly whether or not he did it today. Maybe he really wasn't being purposefully evasive all that time, maybe he really did mean, "yes, you were wrong, I do think they were 'serious failures'", but there's enough doubt that it doesn't really seem such an awful thing to ask him to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the matter.
My initial entry into this thread was because he seemed to be coming down hard on a guy for calling the explosions "serious failures" (having what appeared to me to be a tone of: "Oh no, not 'serious failures'. What are you thinking!"). With his evasiveness and cry of 'foul!', it's completely reasonable to want a clear answer, which is all I really wanted in the first place. Now I don't really care so much--it wasn't that big a deal then, and it's far less so now.
Regardless, I don't really see the point in this anymore. Either he'll answer me unambiguously, or not, either he thinks he already did, or not, either he's a troll, or not (for that matter, either you're him or not, for all I know). That sound you hear is this thread dying, dying, dying (with a few more fits and convulsions than usual)...
Believe me, I know this thread well, it didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means. I've got a string of doctors who all agree: it's in a persistent vegetative state.
are you blind? the poster already has; look, i'll even quote the relevant portion of the reply: "I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement."
My question wasn't, "did you say?" it was, "are you saying?" (and in case my first query was too vague, I've asked it quite a few times now, with no direct response). The difference is not merely superficial. You can "say" something without literally saying it ("Remind me not to ask you to sing at my wedding!" "Are you saying I can't sing?" "I didn't say that!"--you get the idea). That's what I believe the poster is doing[*], and it's quite telling that he won't actually come right out and answer such a simple question.
how the heck could your eyes, your brain, and cognitive faculties so completely miss that?
They haven't. In fact, they are more keen than yours, because I can actually see he's not answered my question (the question that has made him so mad up to this point--odd that he'd not just answer it, unless alleviating his 'anger' isn't what he's after).
[*] Actually, I believe he and his friends (are you one of the players in this little mess? Or really just some AC bystander?) are just trolls, but what the hell. It doesn't really make me mad, although there doesn't seem to be any substance to the other half of this thread. I've made my case, and no one really seems to be interested in an actual honest conversation. Oh well, I tried.
Noone is afraid of that. [GPL v3 being applied retroactively to current code]
You haven't been reading the posts here, have you?
Companies/ASPs, etc. are afraid that they won't be able to port their current modifications made to GPLv2 code to future versions of the software they modify when those are released under GPLv3 and do that without having to release their modifications to the world.
Only if they distribute that code, or use it in a way that violates the new GPL. RMS has made it perfectly clear that he believes that people should have the right to modify code internally without having to share those changes. The proposed changes won't alter that, instead they are trying to close a loophole that appears to need to be addressed.
Or switch to Windows or Solaris or BSD.
If a company wants to violate the terms of the GPL, they have no choice but to fork or switch to different software. This is a good thing, it's that way by design.
I mean, forking a major project isn't exactly cheap or simple.
But it happens, see emacs, X11, the BSDs and apache for major projects that have been forked--in fact, the only major program that hasn't ever forked, that I can think of right off the bat, is Linux.
This all assumes the license is going to be a monstrosity, which I thoroughly doubt--the FSF is chartered to promote their four freedoms.
If the GPL is to be based on copyright law, then it must limit itself to copyright law.
Too bad you don't understand copyright law. You don't have a right to copy the GPL'd code into your program if you don't agree to the license, period.
By your logic, then once I buy a copy of Windows, I can legally copy it and use it however I want. Install it on 10 computers, 100 computers, it's all the same, right?
If I'm not distributing the software, then I'm not distributing the software.
Wait a minute, are you talking about copying or distributing? Distribution rights and copy rights are different (but obviously related).
The lock-in effect of GPLv3 (according to TFA) is a bit different but equally evil - whatever you invest in GPLv3 code modifications, you have to share it with competitors.
That's the point of the GPL, that's not 'lock-in'. At best, it's 'lock-out'.
Yeah, right. And when kernel 3.0 comes out licensed under GPLv3, Google will wanna switch to one of BSD OS
That's their prerogative. That doesn't help your 'lock-in' argument, if they can simply switch to BSD. Lock-in means you'd like to switch away, but just can't
What, "No, I didn't" wasn't clear enough for you??! Fine, here's the answer you wanted to hear: "Yes, you were wrong". And in case you try to spin this in another way, that one is specifically for you, not the original poster.
My question is: Are you saying these aren't "serious failures"?
YES or NO.
My question isn't, "Am I wrong?"
I have, many times, including in my last response! R-E-A-D it!
No, you haven't.
"Yes, you were wrong" is not an answer to my question. "No I didn't" is not an answer to my question (although it's sly--I never said you explicitly said that, so "no I didn't" can be correct, even if the answer to my question is that, you don't believe the explosions were, in fact, "serious failures")
I've never said you explicitly claimed that the accidents weren't "serious failures", but you made a claim with a list of reasons supporting it. A rational person would see that as a refutation of the original statement, but since you didn't state it explicitly, a rational person would ask you to elaborate on that, which you still haven't done. All you've really done is say, "I haven't directly said one way or the other" (well, actually just half of that, that you haven't directly said one way, and really haven't addressed the other). My first question to you was to clarify and actually say one way or the other.
Do you ever plan to get around to doing that?
No games, just answer the question. Something like, "yes, I'm saying that the accidents weren't 'serious failures'" or "no, of course not, they were serious failures, I was just giving it my own take on just what sort of serious failure it was."
You've got three ways to end this thread:
1. don't reply at all (I assure you, my feelings won't be hurt) 2. reply, but fail (yet again) to answer the question (I won't waste my time responding to that) 3. answer the question (I don't really care anymore about any of this--but at least you'll have shown that your posts weren't totally devoid of civil purpose--not that I care much about that either, do it or not, it's obviously your choice to make)
your suggestion is that the right to view the code should be attached to the viewing of the web page generated by the code.
My OOo example is that if you wrap OOo into a web-service interface such that the end-user operates OOo with a browser (so they get a window that looks like OOo, and they can use it as they would OOo), that the end-user is, in effect, "running" OOo, while technically they are only running a web browser with some wrapper program which might not be GPL'd.
This currently looms as a loophole in the GPL, because it's allowed (or at least, not expressly prohibited), yet it circumvents the spirit and intent of the GPL.
This is going to be a tough one to resolve, somewhat like the issues around the LGPL, because of the gray areas
The idea that you can get someone hooked on software, and then pull the rug out from under them and start charging them is ludicrous.
That's not what's being proposed at all. Not one line of code you currently possess that is under the GPL will be subject to v3 of the GPL unless you deliberately choose to do so.
There's a case to be made if the GPL strays from it's free nature, but that's true of every license, not just Free/Open Source licenses. Where the GPL (and others) stands apart from proprietary licenses, in this regard, is that you get to choose whether to accept updated terms. If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork. No big deal. Try that with proprietary software!
Slashdot Mirror
How long will they continue on this "11" series. Isn't it about time to upgrade to X12
It only goes to 11.
If Apple does not defend their copyrights, they lose all ability to use them in the future. Period.
.torrent.
That's just plain not true.
Just because he didn't pay a dime to get access to the software doesn't implicitly mean he got the legal right to redistribute that software to every Tom, Dick, & Harry that connects to his
No one is saying he had that right.
It sickens me that this guy may end up with a life or death decision some day. His lack of foresight speaks volumes about his judgement
What foresight? Do you really think it's rational to assume you'd get sued by Apple, when no one has *ever* been sued for setting up a torrent? And you certainly can't compare a non-life-or-death decision with a life-or-death one. Do you litter? Would that somehow preclude you from diagnosing cancer?
Then again, you did say:
Since we're talking about magical fantasy land
So maybe your entire post was meant to be nonsense?
I hope this clarifys things for you.
Actually, it doesn't...
my point that a computer being a prerequisite to a federal grant is exactly as unfair as a computer being a prerequiste to a federal grant
OK, that's logical and all. A=A. But this isn't A=A, it's A (you need a computer) and B (you need a Windows computer). In this case, A!=B.
Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended.
Yes, that's the way things are, but it's not the way things have to be. Apple could have chosen not to sue him.
In Apple's defence, they played this very well. They sued, then settled for what everyone is assuming are reasonable terms (and not $10k or whatever the RIAA suits have been). The fear people had was that Apple was just going to act like the greedy bully that corporate America tends to create.
Had Sunny driven drunk
That's an awful comparison. Drunk driving kills, maims, and is an all around public danger. Copying a pre-release program might cost Apple a couple of ADC sales.
What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.
I disagree with you on the magnitude of this, although I agree there are differences. When you click "I Agree" it's not equivalent (I'm speaking about it being truly equal, not just legally equal, which it may or may not be) to reading it, understanding it, and knowingly agreeing to all of the terms. Likewise, with buying a CD, you are legally agreeing to the terms of copyright law, which include "agreeing" not to make copies for people.
You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.
Good advice, but I don't think it's fair to place all of the burden onto the end user. I don't mean removing all liability of the consumer. Just that it makes it far to easy to prey on those who don't really understand the legal consequences of their actions.
In comparing this to Apple's and the RIAA's actions, I think Apple struck a fairly acceptable balance--they didn't ream the guys, but didn't let them off scot-free either. The RIAA really shouldn't be, essentially, stealing $10k from people who are just doing what everyone's doing (I know, just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right, but if everyone's in a gang, you at least know killing people is wrong, but how many people really think copying music on the internet is wrong?).
It seems like there would be a way to apply by mail.
TFA doesn't point to a mail-in form, or even mention the existance of one. It does, however, state, "You will submit the application online."
If not, then this doesn't matter, since you already must purchase (or acquire by other means) a computer.
No one is complaining here that you have to buy or acquire a computer, but that you have to buy or acquire a Windows computer. Not only did you not RTFA, but you didn't even RTF slashdot summary.
So, exactly how many planes have crashed due to cellphone or WiFi usage?
Planes don't crash when they fly in areas that have radio towers, they don't crash when flying under satellites, they don't crash when people "accidentally" leave their cellphone one. But, of course, in the lab, when you turn on a cellphone right next to a radio receiver, you get little blips, oscillations, or otherwise see some minor effects. Yet it's absolutely clear that these effects aren't important in the real world. Is it because the radio sources are located tens of meters from the equipment? Is it because the effects are minimal (the device doesn't need the tolerances that the variations on your scope shows)? Is it because you cherry pick your results (well, if the system is hit by lightning and there are four cellphones equadistantly distributed around the plane at 25m, and they ring in order, the plane will think its headed backwards for 300ms)?
When people believe a theory that contradicts reality, we call it superstition.
You can quote your own ancedotal evidence
And you quote yours. Who wins in this discussion? How about the person whose claims actually match reality?
Now, if you have examples of planes being downed by a cellphone, I'm all ears. Let's hear some facts that turn your superstition into reality, if you're so convinced.
Running off isn't going to help you'll find a cop on your doorstep waiting for you to get home.
I *highly* doubt that. The clerk won't be able to describe *at all* what was stolen (since nothing was) there won't be a surveillance tape showing a shoplifting (since none occurred). I'm no expert, but I have to imagine it'll be extremely tough to get a search warrant under those circumstances. And without that warrant, what would be the point?
does it run Linux
No, it runs UNIX.
<ducks!>
Sorry, but none of the things you listed are trolls.
Don't be daft. I didn't say they were all trolls, I said they were some of the highlights of trolls, flamebaits and offtopics. It's absolutely certain that some the posts were from ignorance (duh, I even said that). It's just as certain that some of them were blatant trolls.
So any one of the above can be (and usually are)
Wait a minute, if they "usually" are, doesn't that mean some aren't? Wouldn't that make them prime troll candidates?
honest gripes or questions about Macs
Uninformed gripes, and very few honest questions.
Instead, of course, most Mac people take every post as a personal offense and moderate everything down. That attitude is immature, annoying and ruins the slashdot experience for many people.
Because it's like a bunch of hip-hop lovin' teenage suburbanites complaining about how Beethoven's 9th is lame and old and how come he's never on MTV Cribs if he's so good?
If a post just says, "Apple is the new MS" and that's it, or says, "I'm debating between OS X and XP, so I installed Linux." or "$129 for a point release? If MS did this, you'd all complain about it." aren't substantive posts, just complete idiocy.
At least during the MS-Linux flamewars you can see high moderated posts from each side of the fence which makes the discussion fun to read and sometimes even informative.
That's because everyone's familiar enough with Windows to have a valid opinion, and most everyone who's switched from Windows to Linux has to have some modicum of sense, and familiarity with both Linux and Windows. To berate Apple, all it takes is some insecurity and flawed perceptions. Reread my list and tell me if any of those complaints stand up to even a minimal level of scrutiny. Those posts aren't made in the form of a valid question or inquiry, they're made as an uninformed attack against something they know nothing about. That should be modded up? They're the equivalent of "I didn't RTFA, but is the article submitter retarded or something?"
Honest questions about Apple quite often get modded Interesting, and posts critical of Apple's DRM, their suing of ThinkSecret and AppleInsider, etc, are often modded Informative. Posts complaining that OS X doesn't have games, or that you can run Linux and be free instead just don't add anything to the conversation.
A story about Apple announcing a major set of application updates at a major tradeshow on apple.slashdot.org?!? And that doesn't make sense to you?
Slashdot posts stories whenever Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Woz, RMS, or Bill Gates sneezes. This is by design. News for Nerds, and all.
What's Ubuntu's next animal release name? What's the latest on the BitKeeper saga? Is Tiger showing up early in stores anywhere? When does the next Star Trek series start? Who's the new NASA administrator?
If a site that purports to be news for nerds, and doesn't cover those topics, *that's* when there's something to complain about.
I don't know if its on the level of the old Bell Labs
:-)
I know what you mean. On the one hand, we've got the transistor and UNIX and on the other there's "Clippy" and those menus that keep hiding their menu items.
It's really a close call!
It might not be the most "innovative" software, but it works just fine for most tasks.
Yup, that would be pretty much the opposite of innovation.
The funny thing is yours was the pro Microsoft post.
That's because there are many posts that are trolls, flamebait, and offtopic. These are the same ol' ignorant things over and over again...
Some highlights:
Apple is just like MS, only smaller!
$129? For a point release?!
Forget OS X, install Linux!
200 features? I counted like, 3, tops.
Spotlight? How lame, "ooh, I can search now."
The only thing missing is the "1-button mouse" complaint.
if they were discussing microsoft
But they aren't. Context really is important. It's fully rational to treat MS cynically. That's just the sort of company MS is. That's like saying a post that questioned IBM's open sourcing of a program is just as valid as a post questioning MS's doing the same. IBM has proven they really do support FS/OSS, while MS has truly open sourced all of something like two trivial things.
Apple products truly do get better with each new release. MS products, for the most part, just get different. Why? Is it Jobs vs Gates? Is it underdog vs monopoly? Is it good vs evil? Probably some of each, and much more, I don't know. But time and again, the two companies really do act in very different ways, deserving very different opinions.
However I do have a goodly bit of management experience
Yet in an act of generosity, I continued reading...
Does that statement reflect what was originally intended? Of course not but this is the era of the spin and you can bet that they will use it in whatever way they can.
One of the things that makes FS/OSS so attractive is that things aren't about spin (yes, there is always going to be some spin, but nothing like in your world) but about the code and about technical excellence.
*If* Linus is being an ass[*], then we *all* benefit by calling him out on it. If we don't, then he'll just continue to be an ass. It's the way we get things done.
It's something of a matter of pride that we don't suffer fools gladly--and everyone takes their turn as the fool, even Torvalds (who once did a similar calling out of a certain Professor, over a decade ago).
[*]I think he is, but I think he's doing it because he's a polite guy and doesn't want to 'spit' on the guy who has 'sort of' donated some software to the Linux developers. Unfortunately this 'donation' is really just a PR stunt, as is apparent by the way this fiasco has played out. What BitMovers has done is essentially donated money (in the form of 'gratis' software) for Linus to use, but donated no code whatsoever.
In an odd sort of parallel, this is not unlike the incident with a printer that started RMS down the road to GNU--except that in this case, Linus is telling us we shouldn't try to fix the printer driver ourselves.
I don't mean to say that most people will be able to 'visualize' 10 million light years, but that they can learn to compare that distance with 1 million light years, and not just think 'lots'.
You answered (sort of) the way people are now, but not so much why they are the way they are. Why aren't people taught to think critically? I think the answer to *that* question is far more interesting and far more important (and also what I think the OP meant when asking why people make such a big deal over things that tend to happen only once over many millions of years).
It's fair to note that *I* didn't answer that question either, but I'll give a few thoughts:
Cultural apathy towards learning
Political/ideological opposition to quality government education
Control of the masses (if you can't think for yourself, you'll rely on others to think for you, and will do what they demand if you're sufficiently frightened)
I just can't help but notice how non-objective this site is.
On slashdot, the users submit (and thus, author) stories. They aren't generally schooled in the intricacies of journalism. It's not fair to expect 'professional' journalistic practices from them.
As unfair as it is to expect standards never stated nor implied, the comparison to Fox News is especially bad. Fox outright lies about their objectivity. Most people don't hate Fox News because of their conservative bias, but because they try to pass it off as fair and balanced.
This is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Nerds don't tend to suffer poor software gladly.
Last, it was obvious that IE would be the worst of the bunch. Some other article could just as easily have said, "Obviously, the Perl version was slower," or "But obviously, the RIAA continues to cripple their music with DRM." Which are roughly equivalent in their subjective way of communicating objective truth.
[I] am no way an MS advocate.
I'm not all that convinced.
Can XM continue its meteoric growth?
I'm pretty sure the satellite radio companies don't generally like to use the adjective 'meteoric'.
I'm confused...
Linus is Willy Wonka, and the rest of the kernel developers are Oompa Loompas?
What has me confused isn't so much that I think that that's true, but that it just seems so right somehow.
well, he did clearly answer (as in, exactly the way you want, though perhaps not the same question you wanted an answer to) "Yes, you were wrong" to your own comment
The problem is that it's not clear that that's what he meant. Given the continuing ambiguity, I don't think it's unreasonable to request a definitive answer. You know, like when a kid answers "yes" to, "did you take out the trash?" and he really means he did it last week, not today, you want him to state explicitly whether or not he did it today. Maybe he really wasn't being purposefully evasive all that time, maybe he really did mean, "yes, you were wrong, I do think they were 'serious failures'", but there's enough doubt that it doesn't really seem such an awful thing to ask him to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the matter.
My initial entry into this thread was because he seemed to be coming down hard on a guy for calling the explosions "serious failures" (having what appeared to me to be a tone of: "Oh no, not 'serious failures'. What are you thinking!"). With his evasiveness and cry of 'foul!', it's completely reasonable to want a clear answer, which is all I really wanted in the first place. Now I don't really care so much--it wasn't that big a deal then, and it's far less so now.
Regardless, I don't really see the point in this anymore. Either he'll answer me unambiguously, or not, either he thinks he already did, or not, either he's a troll, or not (for that matter, either you're him or not, for all I know). That sound you hear is this thread dying, dying, dying (with a few more fits and convulsions than usual)...
Believe me, I know this thread well, it didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means. I've got a string of doctors who all agree: it's in a persistent vegetative state.
With that, the thread died with a 'poof!'...
or did it?
are you blind? the poster already has; look, i'll even quote the relevant portion of the reply:
"I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement."
My question wasn't, "did you say?" it was, "are you saying?" (and in case my first query was too vague, I've asked it quite a few times now, with no direct response). The difference is not merely superficial. You can "say" something without literally saying it ("Remind me not to ask you to sing at my wedding!" "Are you saying I can't sing?" "I didn't say that!"--you get the idea). That's what I believe the poster is doing[*], and it's quite telling that he won't actually come right out and answer such a simple question.
how the heck could your eyes, your brain, and cognitive faculties so completely miss that?
They haven't. In fact, they are more keen than yours, because I can actually see he's not answered my question (the question that has made him so mad up to this point--odd that he'd not just answer it, unless alleviating his 'anger' isn't what he's after).
[*] Actually, I believe he and his friends (are you one of the players in this little mess? Or really just some AC bystander?) are just trolls, but what the hell. It doesn't really make me mad, although there doesn't seem to be any substance to the other half of this thread. I've made my case, and no one really seems to be interested in an actual honest conversation. Oh well, I tried.
Noone is afraid of that. [GPL v3 being applied retroactively to current code]
You haven't been reading the posts here, have you?
Companies/ASPs, etc. are afraid that they won't be able to port their current modifications made to GPLv2 code to future versions of the software they modify when those are released under GPLv3 and do that without having to release their modifications to the world.
Only if they distribute that code, or use it in a way that violates the new GPL. RMS has made it perfectly clear that he believes that people should have the right to modify code internally without having to share those changes. The proposed changes won't alter that, instead they are trying to close a loophole that appears to need to be addressed.
Or switch to Windows or Solaris or BSD.
If a company wants to violate the terms of the GPL, they have no choice but to fork or switch to different software. This is a good thing, it's that way by design.
I mean, forking a major project isn't exactly cheap or simple.
But it happens, see emacs, X11, the BSDs and apache for major projects that have been forked--in fact, the only major program that hasn't ever forked, that I can think of right off the bat, is Linux.
This all assumes the license is going to be a monstrosity, which I thoroughly doubt--the FSF is chartered to promote their four freedoms.
If the GPL is to be based on copyright law, then it must limit itself to copyright law.
Too bad you don't understand copyright law. You don't have a right to copy the GPL'd code into your program if you don't agree to the license, period.
By your logic, then once I buy a copy of Windows, I can legally copy it and use it however I want. Install it on 10 computers, 100 computers, it's all the same, right?
If I'm not distributing the software, then I'm not distributing the software.
Wait a minute, are you talking about copying or distributing? Distribution rights and copy rights are different (but obviously related).
The lock-in effect of GPLv3 (according to TFA) is a bit different but equally evil - whatever you invest in GPLv3 code modifications, you have to share it with competitors.
That's the point of the GPL, that's not 'lock-in'. At best, it's 'lock-out'.
Yeah, right. And when kernel 3.0 comes out licensed under GPLv3, Google will wanna switch to one of BSD OS
That's their prerogative. That doesn't help your 'lock-in' argument, if they can simply switch to BSD. Lock-in means you'd like to switch away, but just can't
What, "No, I didn't" wasn't clear enough for you??! Fine, here's the answer you wanted to hear: "Yes, you were wrong". And in case you try to spin this in another way, that one is specifically for you, not the original poster.
My question is: Are you saying these aren't "serious failures"?
YES or NO.
My question isn't, "Am I wrong?"
I have, many times, including in my last response! R-E-A-D it!
No, you haven't.
"Yes, you were wrong" is not an answer to my question. "No I didn't" is not an answer to my question (although it's sly--I never said you explicitly said that, so "no I didn't" can be correct, even if the answer to my question is that, you don't believe the explosions were, in fact, "serious failures")
I've never said you explicitly claimed that the accidents weren't "serious failures", but you made a claim with a list of reasons supporting it. A rational person would see that as a refutation of the original statement, but since you didn't state it explicitly, a rational person would ask you to elaborate on that, which you still haven't done. All you've really done is say, "I haven't directly said one way or the other" (well, actually just half of that, that you haven't directly said one way, and really haven't addressed the other). My first question to you was to clarify and actually say one way or the other.
Do you ever plan to get around to doing that?
No games, just answer the question. Something like, "yes, I'm saying that the accidents weren't 'serious failures'" or "no, of course not, they were serious failures, I was just giving it my own take on just what sort of serious failure it was."
You've got three ways to end this thread:
1. don't reply at all (I assure you, my feelings won't be hurt)
2. reply, but fail (yet again) to answer the question (I won't waste my time responding to that)
3. answer the question (I don't really care anymore about any of this--but at least you'll have shown that your posts weren't totally devoid of civil purpose--not that I care much about that either, do it or not, it's obviously your choice to make)
If I understand what you're saying
You don't.
your suggestion is that the right to view the code should be attached to the viewing of the web page generated by the code.
My OOo example is that if you wrap OOo into a web-service interface such that the end-user operates OOo with a browser (so they get a window that looks like OOo, and they can use it as they would OOo), that the end-user is, in effect, "running" OOo, while technically they are only running a web browser with some wrapper program which might not be GPL'd.
This currently looms as a loophole in the GPL, because it's allowed (or at least, not expressly prohibited), yet it circumvents the spirit and intent of the GPL.
This is going to be a tough one to resolve, somewhat like the issues around the LGPL, because of the gray areas
The idea that you can get someone hooked on software, and then pull the rug out from under them and start charging them is ludicrous.
That's not what's being proposed at all. Not one line of code you currently possess that is under the GPL will be subject to v3 of the GPL unless you deliberately choose to do so.
There's a case to be made if the GPL strays from it's free nature, but that's true of every license, not just Free/Open Source licenses. Where the GPL (and others) stands apart from proprietary licenses, in this regard, is that you get to choose whether to accept updated terms. If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork. No big deal. Try that with proprietary software!