IBM doesn't want alternative PC manufacturers, so to try and force alternative manufacturers on IBM is wrong. It steals something that belongs to IBM.
Try replacing IBM with Apple and you've got the analogy in the bag! At one time Apple allowed clones. When companies got a license to clone the Mac from Apple they were OK. When Apple canceled 3rd party hardware, it was no longer OK. Same thing with different PC parts. For instance, I'm sure that if I wanted to make a n Geforce 4 card I couldn't just buy a box of GPU's off the black market. I'd probably have to sign a licensing agreement with NVIDIA to use their chips, and their intellectual property.
but this is like complaining people acess/. with IE instead of Mozilla.
No, it's more like complaining that people access their online bank which is broken in non-IE browsers with non-IE browsers. Better example would be accessing a hiwire stream with a non-hiwire plugin.
AOL chooses to limit which clients access their service. AOL doesn't want alternative clients, so to try and force alternative clients on AOL is wrong. It steals something that belongs to AOL.
That's why I said, Trillian should sign a contract with AOL to be an official client and then sell their client. If they don't, then I have a problem with them.
while MS tried to use the same AIM protocal to help unify IM as ordered by the US government when AOL merged with Time Warner.
No, MS used the merger as a scapegoat to excuse their theft of AOL's service.
Also, MS has been the only company to actually alert Trillian's creators ahead of time about a server change that might break Trillian.
Everyone can play with their product was they wish. If Microsoft wants to use Trillian, that's their prorogative. However, if Trillian refuses to properly license AOL's service like Apple did, then I think that Trillian is at fault. Why doesn't Trillian sell their client, and then step up to the plate and sign a licensing agreement with AOL. Seems to me that would accomplish a lot more then whining about how AOL won't let them play, er, um steal.
I've tested out the Trillian client, so I can't say that I'm totally out of the loop as to what they are doing. I just think that they should do the right thing.
Apple has done just about as many nasty things as MS.
I'm sorry, but if Apple's done anything nasty, they must have done a good job keeping it a secret. I'd have thought that slashdot at least would have been all over it.
but I feel it was only born out of competitive necessity.
Most things are, but that's a good thing in my book.
If you have to just use Redhat, how is this any different than being forced to use Windows because your favorite game or application is only available on that platform?
What's wrong with using Windows if that's what your application requires? I don't see anything wrong with it. I usually take that into account when I look into choices for applications. But there is nothing wrong with an ISV choosing a specific platform to run their application on.
What I meant by "nice" was that they were fast in their business practices, they quickly made a good product, and marketed it ruthelessly. Is this against the law?
Ok, so we can agree that no person or company is bad 100% of the time. But what about the areas that Microsoft did break the law. Don't you agree that we should hold them accountable for those actions?
Don't think for a minute if Apple were in the drivers seat that you could tell the difference between Microsoft of today.
Let's see. Apple licensed AOL's instant messaging service, MS tried to steal it. Apple lets Terra Soft preload Yellowdog and OS X, MS prevents OEM's from offering Linux, BeOS, OS/2 to customers that want it.
Microsoft broke the law. Apple hasn't. There's a lot to tell apart, so I don't see how you could claim otherwise. Don't forget, Microsoft has been violating the law ever since DOS days. The way a company is run when it's small is the way it's run when it's large.
I'm not flaming or anything, but Microsoft is quite successful, whether their business practices are "nice" or not is irrelevant.
So you think that if a company is successful, then they should be put above the law? Why not let successful criminals be above the law?
Should a carjacker not be prosecuted if he successful steals my Corvette? Maybe I should only prosecute him if I catch him before he drives away. Or perhaps you say that only businesses should be above the law. Then perhaps if the auto dealer scams me for services that they didn't do, they should not be prosecuted. After all, they are successful, that's what their financial records show.
I get it. It's not were they are successful or not at all. It's whether they hurt you. People today look at guilt or innocence not in relation to laws, but to whether they were hurt. That's why OJ Simpson, Bill Clinton and Microsoft gets off the hook. People don't feel they have been personally hurt yet by them so it doesn't matter. That's why they man who kidnapped the little girl in the park gets the death penatly. He hit close to home.
I could see how some people using smaller distributions could be annoyed that a lot of popular commercial software is targeted to Red Hat.
Intriguing.
Why not just use Red Hat for those applications then? Certainly a proposal for a new application would take into account what distribution it is supported on?
So, in a sense, RedHat has become the next Windows. It is synonymous with the concept of Linux.
Are you implying that Windows is bad? I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad. If Microsoft would sell Windows on it's own virtues, instead of selling it by preventing consumers from buying what they want, Microsoft would not have it's anti-trust troubles.
Red Hat may be the front and center trademark in the Linux field. But they are selling it on it's own virtues, not by prevents other distributions a place in the market.
but to prevent OS vendors from dominating and killing off large sectors of the software market?
I'm sure that if you show the DoJ how Apple is doing this in violation of antitrust laws they will be willing to bring charges against Apple too.
However, I don't think that you will find any evidence. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has actually licensed technologies from other companies. Think of 1-click and iChat. Anyways, if Microsoft would have licensed various technologies, such as AOL's instant messaging services instead of tried to steal it, and also not prevented OEM's from selling what their customers wanted, Microsoft probably wouldn't be in trouble either.
What do you mean by PC's? An Intel compatible chip, or white box hardware? If you mean an Intel compatible chip maybe 2-4 years depending on how the PowerPC line pans out. If you mean white box hardware, then I think you're just trolling.
They just don't want to do the work of making their internal software generate the stream in a different format.
Ok, so they are bastardizing the asf codec to make it asf+. Why? If the ads are being properly replaced at the server like they should be, then why not stream real Windows Media?
At least then Mac users could use the Windows Media player to listen to streams, and Everyone else could use Wine.
I just today read a children's popular science article on gravity in my local newspaper claiming that "the apple falls faster than the feather, because the apple is heavier". It would have been hilarious if it wasn't so tragical.
It was a children's article, after all. What do you expect? Oh the humanity! Next people will want us to teach the concept of mass to elementary students.
Apparently Hiwire does some sort of client-side ad blocking. To me that seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially when they say that huge penalties can apply if it fails.
Why don't stations do it on their end? They play a song and then a commercial goes on. Great. The server just feeds the broadcast commercial to the broadcast feed, and the internet commercial to the internet feed and all is well. Not only that, but then someone can't grab the feed with a non-hiwire client, run it through a hacked codec and cause the station to be liable for huge fines.
Furthermore, if it would be done server-side they wouldn't have to spout out the garbage that it's too complicated to implement without an activeX control.
"The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero," This Orin S. Kerr should have a solid sit down chat with Dimitry.
Perhaps Dimitry did something more then just give a speech?
I have galeon pretending to be IE most of the time thanks to the online banking type services I use who refuse to let you login with any other browser (for which galeon works fine with)
I have the same problem. But why not just make a shortcut to change it when you access the site, instead of using an IE tag everywhere?
This may finally allow AOL to license their servers to over companies and have their own @company.com clients that interoperate. Perhaps Microsoft needs to talk to AOL about licensing again. And Yahoo. and whoever else wants to offer a specialised IM client. I want my bmetzler@yahoo.com AIM ID. That'd be cool.
Too bad AOL seems gung-ho about preventing these fine application from being put properly to use.
You mean from stealing AOL's resources, right? If AOL wants to only let their clients, or licensed clients connect, then they should be able to do so. It's their resources after all. If Trillian wants to be compatible, they should step up to the plate and talk to AOL, just like Apple did. If AOL declines, well, this is a free country and you can do business with whoever you want.
Notice that they bury in the article the huge effort it took to rewrite the code.
Yes, but can you *imagine* the expense to go from HP/UX to XP? I'm sure Microsoft wanted Verizon to do that. At least HP/UX is somewhat similar to Linux, making the porting process simpler.
I would have probably wanted to keep my HP/UX Workstation. But I guess they were needing to be upgraded. So you go with the best tool for the job.
It's also good to see Verizon standardizing on one development platform. Even if they continue to use MSN on their phones and website.
When I installed RedHat 7.3, turns out disk 3 had a media error on it. [...] I lost quite a bit of time on that little endeavour.
Funny, when I installed Windows 2000, it was disk 1 that had a media error on it. Of course, I'm sure that just like in your case, when I got a good cd, the installer worked. I've always found that it's easier to get a copy of a Linux CD then a Microsoft CD anyways. I don't know, can you even make cdr's of Windows 2k/XP?
Also, if haven't 3 CD's is a problem for you, I can attest that you can install RedHat with just the first cd. Just like Windows 2000. And you get a basic configuration, just like Windows 2000. So just because you have 3 CD's to work from, shouldn't hold you back just because you like to install from one CD.
I think the main mistake this article made was automatically assuming reboot = "hard". I don't really see the logic here - it reboots automatically, not really much of an inconvenience.
What about after Windows boots for the first time? Then the driver CD's come out. And it's install a driver, reboot, install a driver, reboot, and none of that's automatic.
At least with Linux it gets all my hardware drivers installed during the install. With Windows, drivers are on your own for peripherals.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL's resources
I don't know what hiwire is so I can't comment on that.Sorry, I was refering to this story.
IBM doesn't want alternative PC manufacturers, so to try and force alternative manufacturers on IBM is wrong. It steals something that belongs to IBM.Try replacing IBM with Apple and you've got the analogy in the bag! At one time Apple allowed clones. When companies got a license to clone the Mac from Apple they were OK. When Apple canceled 3rd party hardware, it was no longer OK. Same thing with different PC parts. For instance, I'm sure that if I wanted to make a n Geforce 4 card I couldn't just buy a box of GPU's off the black market. I'd probably have to sign a licensing agreement with NVIDIA to use their chips, and their intellectual property.
-BrentNo, it's more like complaining that people access their online bank which is broken in non-IE browsers with non-IE browsers. Better example would be accessing a hiwire stream with a non-hiwire plugin.
AOL chooses to limit which clients access their service. AOL doesn't want alternative clients, so to try and force alternative clients on AOL is wrong. It steals something that belongs to AOL.
That's why I said, Trillian should sign a contract with AOL to be an official client and then sell their client. If they don't, then I have a problem with them.
-BrentNo, MS used the merger as a scapegoat to excuse their theft of AOL's service.
Also, MS has been the only company to actually alert Trillian's creators ahead of time about a server change that might break Trillian.Everyone can play with their product was they wish. If Microsoft wants to use Trillian, that's their prorogative. However, if Trillian refuses to properly license AOL's service like Apple did, then I think that Trillian is at fault. Why doesn't Trillian sell their client, and then step up to the plate and sign a licensing agreement with AOL. Seems to me that would accomplish a lot more then whining about how AOL won't let them play, er, um steal.
I've tested out the Trillian client, so I can't say that I'm totally out of the loop as to what they are doing. I just think that they should do the right thing.
Apple has done just about as many nasty things as MS.I'm sorry, but if Apple's done anything nasty, they must have done a good job keeping it a secret. I'd have thought that slashdot at least would have been all over it.
but I feel it was only born out of competitive necessity.Most things are, but that's a good thing in my book.
-BrentWhat's wrong with using Windows if that's what your application requires? I don't see anything wrong with it. I usually take that into account when I look into choices for applications. But there is nothing wrong with an ISV choosing a specific platform to run their application on.
-BrentOk, so we can agree that no person or company is bad 100% of the time. But what about the areas that Microsoft did break the law. Don't you agree that we should hold them accountable for those actions?
-BrentLet's see. Apple licensed AOL's instant messaging service, MS tried to steal it. Apple lets Terra Soft preload Yellowdog and OS X, MS prevents OEM's from offering Linux, BeOS, OS/2 to customers that want it.
Microsoft broke the law. Apple hasn't. There's a lot to tell apart, so I don't see how you could claim otherwise. Don't forget, Microsoft has been violating the law ever since DOS days. The way a company is run when it's small is the way it's run when it's large.
-BrentSo you think that if a company is successful, then they should be put above the law? Why not let successful criminals be above the law?
Should a carjacker not be prosecuted if he successful steals my Corvette? Maybe I should only prosecute him if I catch him before he drives away. Or perhaps you say that only businesses should be above the law. Then perhaps if the auto dealer scams me for services that they didn't do, they should not be prosecuted. After all, they are successful, that's what their financial records show.
I get it. It's not were they are successful or not at all. It's whether they hurt you. People today look at guilt or innocence not in relation to laws, but to whether they were hurt. That's why OJ Simpson, Bill Clinton and Microsoft gets off the hook. People don't feel they have been personally hurt yet by them so it doesn't matter. That's why they man who kidnapped the little girl in the park gets the death penatly. He hit close to home.
-BrentIntriguing.
Why not just use Red Hat for those applications then? Certainly a proposal for a new application would take into account what distribution it is supported on?
-BrentWasn't this because Microsoft was again choosing for the customer what they should buy?
-BrentAre you implying that Windows is bad? I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad. If Microsoft would sell Windows on it's own virtues, instead of selling it by preventing consumers from buying what they want, Microsoft would not have it's anti-trust troubles.
Red Hat may be the front and center trademark in the Linux field. But they are selling it on it's own virtues, not by prevents other distributions a place in the market.
-BrentI'm sure that if you show the DoJ how Apple is doing this in violation of antitrust laws they will be willing to bring charges against Apple too.
However, I don't think that you will find any evidence. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has actually licensed technologies from other companies. Think of 1-click and iChat. Anyways, if Microsoft would have licensed various technologies, such as AOL's instant messaging services instead of tried to steal it, and also not prevented OEM's from selling what their customers wanted, Microsoft probably wouldn't be in trouble either.
-BrentI'm in ACCIS. They've been great. I've also got friends in it. You can email me brent@bmetzler.org if you'd like more details.
-BrentWhat do you mean by PC's? An Intel compatible chip, or white box hardware? If you mean an Intel compatible chip maybe 2-4 years depending on how the PowerPC line pans out. If you mean white box hardware, then I think you're just trolling.
-BrentOk, so they are bastardizing the asf codec to make it asf+. Why? If the ads are being properly replaced at the server like they should be, then why not stream real Windows Media?
At least then Mac users could use the Windows Media player to listen to streams, and Everyone else could use Wine.
-BrentIt was a children's article, after all. What do you expect? Oh the humanity! Next people will want us to teach the concept of mass to elementary students.
-BrentWhy don't stations do it on their end? They play a song and then a commercial goes on. Great. The server just feeds the broadcast commercial to the broadcast feed, and the internet commercial to the internet feed and all is well. Not only that, but then someone can't grab the feed with a non-hiwire client, run it through a hacked codec and cause the station to be liable for huge fines.
Furthermore, if it would be done server-side they wouldn't have to spout out the garbage that it's too complicated to implement without an activeX control.
Wine is slow. It's much preferable to compile the source myself using the optimizations I created for my self-designed Pentium XII+++++ killer.
-BrentPerhaps Dimitry did something more then just give a speech?
-BrentI have the same problem. But why not just make a shortcut to change it when you access the site, instead of using an IE tag everywhere?
-BrentNah, when they asked for your personal information, you probably lied and said, "Bill Gates, 1 Redmond Way".
-BrentThis may finally allow AOL to license their servers to over companies and have their own @company.com clients that interoperate. Perhaps Microsoft needs to talk to AOL about licensing again. And Yahoo. and whoever else wants to offer a specialised IM client. I want my bmetzler@yahoo.com AIM ID. That'd be cool.
-Brent
You mean from stealing AOL's resources, right? If AOL wants to only let their clients, or licensed clients connect, then they should be able to do so. It's their resources after all. If Trillian wants to be compatible, they should step up to the plate and talk to AOL, just like Apple did. If AOL declines, well, this is a free country and you can do business with whoever you want.
-BrentYes, but can you *imagine* the expense to go from HP/UX to XP? I'm sure Microsoft wanted Verizon to do that. At least HP/UX is somewhat similar to Linux, making the porting process simpler.
I would have probably wanted to keep my HP/UX Workstation. But I guess they were needing to be upgraded. So you go with the best tool for the job.
It's also good to see Verizon standardizing on one development platform. Even if they continue to use MSN on their phones and website.
-BrentFunny, when I installed Windows 2000, it was disk 1 that had a media error on it. Of course, I'm sure that just like in your case, when I got a good cd, the installer worked. I've always found that it's easier to get a copy of a Linux CD then a Microsoft CD anyways. I don't know, can you even make cdr's of Windows 2k/XP?
Also, if haven't 3 CD's is a problem for you, I can attest that you can install RedHat with just the first cd. Just like Windows 2000. And you get a basic configuration, just like Windows 2000. So just because you have 3 CD's to work from, shouldn't hold you back just because you like to install from one CD.
-BrentI think the main mistake this article made was automatically assuming reboot = "hard". I don't really see the logic here - it reboots automatically, not really much of an inconvenience.
What about after Windows boots for the first time? Then the driver CD's come out. And it's install a driver, reboot, install a driver, reboot, and none of that's automatic.
At least with Linux it gets all my hardware drivers installed during the install. With Windows, drivers are on your own for peripherals.
-Brent