True, but they do it in an "but it shouldn't and our lawyers will make it go away so don't count on it" way. If they think they can get away with it, not something they'll worry overmuch about.
That might work to get people to not use OS/2, or Lotus 123, but it doesn't work for things like DeCSS, and Napster. And, oh yeah, NTFS support in the Linux kernel. If Microsoft makes a big deal about it you know that everyone is giong to have their copy of it, whether they use it or not.
please re-read my post and you will find the second paragraph considers and discounts your 'explanation'.
Idiot Alert! Learn something about both sites before you try to figure them out. Slashdot has editors that post stories. This was a question, so it was posted by an editor to "Ask Slashdot" a section for questions. Kuro5hin, OTOH, works by having the users vote on the stories to determine whether they should be posted. The users apparently decided the story should be posted.
So, to repeat what I just said so that your small pea-sized brain can comprehend it, their was one editor, and a bunch of users.
Who is so out of touch with reality, and too stupid to check up on his ignorance, to rate that comment as "Informative"?
Yeah, that's for sure. Everyone ought to know that Windows 2000 can't handle ext2 drives and therefore you must fdisk from Linux before attempting to install Windows 2000.
Subscribers to Wired and Fortune magazines were sent CueCat's and they did not order the merchandise.
Magazines *always* include lot's a free stuff with their subscriptions. This can hardly be claimed to be "unsolicited". Why, Just recently I recieved a poster with my Sys Admin magazine, and a CD with my Java Developers Journal. Oh, yeah, and a cuecat was sent to those who had Wired subscriptions.
In othere words, people who recieve 'cease and desist' orders should simply quote this part of the code, say that they're helping friends who recieved them in the mail for free and tell them to go smoke their letter.
Most likely, people who received the C&D got their CueCat from Radio Shack and therefore this doesn't even apply to them. A few others probably did recieve their CueCat with their Forbes and Wired subscription, but in that case it wasn't mailed in violation of subsection (a) either.
However, I do worry that this much media under one thumb could make mainstream media even worse.
The biggest thing that bugs me about all this is that so many people whine that Microsoft shouldn't be broken up because they were just "successful", even though their "success" was due to breaking the law. Yet at the same time they say that it's wrong for 2 successful companies to want to be more successful.
I find this the height of all hypocrisy. Let's punish companies that break the law by breaking them up. But if a company is successful, let's let them be more successful as long as they haven't broken the law. Neither AOL or Time Warner has been proven to have broken the law. So if they believe that the deal will make them be more successful, then they should be free to do it.
What they hate is the government that implied that it would do one thing, and then did another.
Wait a minute! What did the government imply that they would do? They offered 6 year work visas to those how wanted to work in the US. The 6 years are up, and back go the workers. So where's the problem?
except for #2 because that could be something that's actually negative.
How in tarnish could setting up a licensing/support/partnership with a Linux distributor be 'bad'? This provides a channel for the company work work through with their Linux needs, strengthening their experience with Linux. It strengthens the Linux distributor because they have customers. customers is good. So it's a win, win situation all around.
Can you imagine Microsoft claiming that having companies license Windows 2000 from them is 'negative'?
How could monitor my own data on my own hardware be intrusive? There's no 'privacy' involved because the company is monitoring their own data. Is an employee emailing information to a client? Well, is it confidential, or not? That's all you are trying to watch for. Do they visit a web site to order new office supplies? Well, did they enter confidential information into the order?
If you need to watch for confidential data leaving the company over the corporate network, then you do it. The data is all the companies anyways. You aren't running a public ISP where customers expect that you aren't slurping CC numbers. Or a phone company where people expect to be able to share their whoas without it becoming public knowledge.
Now, if you're concerned that if by monitoring the companies data, that you'd be exposed to confidential information that you feel would be detrimental if you had access to, then you need to go to your management and talk to them about it. I'm sure they'd be more then willing to do anything they can to make it possible to do your job without you being responsible for keeping secret.
License the direstobution from a vendor with support and everything you'd get from Microsoft. That's the best thing to do. Then you have a business relationship with them.
They don't read the sites, Steve. Your secrets are safe.
It's not the fans that Steve Jobs doesn't want to know what Apple is doing. It's the competitors who, if they would find out what Apple is planning, would announce that you should what 3 more years because MS^H^H, er the competition, is going to be releasing the exact same thing, but better.
I'm sure that if Steve Jobs had a way of letting the fans know about developments without the "competitors" being able to make claims that would cause non-fans to not buy Apples products, he'd do that. But I think for know, if you really want Apple to be successful for you, you need to support Apple and work with them.
Pardon my ignorance, though, if someone can explain to me why as the author of some open source software (all gpl'd actually, but not because RMS said I should) I should give a shit.
Other people have mentioned this before, but I guess it should be repeated. No one cares what you license your own code with except you. But if you use an "almost" GPL license, then don't whine if you find that you can't get your code accepted in a GPL distro.
How to learn to use the Install or how to learn to use Linux?
Well, you acknowledged that your Grandpa didn't install Windows, so therefore he just had to how to use "X". In this case Windows.
My Grandpa didn't install Windows, it came on the computer, but since then he has installed - on his own - various software titles. Could he have done this on Linux? I dunno, I doubt it... It doesn't get much easier than putting the CD in and clicking OK a couple of times...
Well, You can have applications autorun from the CD in Linux when the CD is inserted, just like on Windows. A few OK's and the app is installed. Don't see a major difference between Linux and Windows here.
Windows also has a very consistent look and feel. 99% of Windows apps have similar menu options, a consistent toolbar appearance, etc. With Linux, that familiarity is lacking (at least in my experiences).
That's silly. Microsoft doesn't even have a common look and feel between their own apps. I just upgraded from Office 97 to Office 2000 and all the menu's and widgets changed again. No more Services menu in Outlook. I still haven't figured out how to set Outlook up the way I had it before. Media Player has some sort of wierd skin now. Internet Explorer's scrollbars change color.
Non MS apps are even worse. Some of them don't have scrollbars that scroll with the mouse wheel. Some of them use old widgets. No, Windows is not any more consistant then Linux. But Like doesn't try to claim to be consistant. If you need consistancy, only run KDE apps, or Gnome apps.
The difference between Linux and Windows is not the ease of use, it's how much you already know. Must people who struggled to learn Windows, think that Linux is too hard. But what they are forgetting is that they struggled to learn Windows also.
Now, do you think my grandpa could install Linux on his own? I know he couldn't... and he is a very typical new computer user.
The question isn't whether your grandpa could install Linux. The question is whether he could install Windows. I'd guess he probably couldn't. That doesn't mean that Windows is easier or harder then Linux. Probably, you'd find that overall, they are both even in terms of illiterate computer users to be able to learn how to use them.
Aren't things like corba and bonobo methods for communicating with applications? Either I don't understand Bonobo, or I don't understand the question, or I've had too much Mountain Dew.
I mean, people are already using Win(Something) but they cant switch to Linux, because most things don't work (In my case Visio), but when/if Microsoft builds Office/Visio/Money/etc for Linux, they be able to choose (now that's a new concept for M$)
It is a new concept for Microsoft.:) It's obvious they haven't gotten it yet. But Microsoft clearly said that they were doing this (porting apps to Linux) solely to attract Linux users to Windows 2000. I, however, think it wass have the opposite effect.
I'm not sure what this means... _Instead, Microsoft will leverage Linux as an entry point to Windows, "in the same way it does with the Macintosh version of Office."_
It's obvious. People won't switch OS's unless all their data still works. Microsoft only makes MS Office for the Mac, because it allows poeple to in the future, take that data with them when they finally upgrade to Windows 2000. If MS makes Office for Linux, the reason they are doing that is because they concede that people *will* be using Linux on the desktop. Office just allows Linux users to then migrate back to Windows 2000 effortlessly. Office for Linux is just a way for MS to rein back in their marketshare to Windows again.
We want to ensure that the scumbags can never be censored. If that happens, then we find upstanding citizens can also never be censored.
Gun control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Not scumbags. So, even though scumbags will always be assured of having guns, upstanding citizens will not. I guess that theory is wrong.
Leaches [sic] exist due to the efforts or output of others. Rob made millions by letting people write on his web page.
That's what business is. You provide a service that someone wants and get something in return for it. This could be pizza delivery, babysitting, carpet cleaning, painting, a ton of things. Rob provided a website. A lot of people 'wanted' it, and he got something in return.
The whiners that wanted the source, OTOH, just wanted to be able to use slash without having to give anything in return. It was Rob's site, and Rob's work. They should have written their own code if they wanted it. Instead, he gave it to you guys, and now what. You think you deserve to demand from him every little feature you desire. Well, like Rob said, it's not going to happen.
If I want a particular PDA format to be supported, I'd expect the people who are paid to run the site to code for it, not me.
Rob just can't win, can he? Before, when the code wasn't available, people whined that he was a hypocrite for promoting open source, but not supporting it himself and letting others hack the code. Now that the code is finally open, and he points out that anyone can provide code, people whine because he should write the code all by himself. He should just quit releasing his changes to the source again. leaches...
Slashdot Mirror
They must have fixed it then. The question asks if it's illegal to download copyrighted music from the internet. They say it is.
-BrentThat might work to get people to not use OS/2, or Lotus 123, but it doesn't work for things like DeCSS, and Napster. And, oh yeah, NTFS support in the Linux kernel. If Microsoft makes a big deal about it you know that everyone is giong to have their copy of it, whether they use it or not.
-BrentAnd *your* CueCat didn't? That's pretty surprising.
-BrentIdiot Alert! Learn something about both sites before you try to figure them out. Slashdot has editors that post stories. This was a question, so it was posted by an editor to "Ask Slashdot" a section for questions. Kuro5hin, OTOH, works by having the users vote on the stories to determine whether they should be posted. The users apparently decided the story should be posted.
So, to repeat what I just said so that your small pea-sized brain can comprehend it, their was one editor, and a bunch of users.
g'd day!But when I get CD's, they *do* tell me what I can and can't do. Does that mean that I can ignore the license on the CD's I receive in the mail?
-BrentYeah, that's for sure. Everyone ought to know that Windows 2000 can't handle ext2 drives and therefore you must fdisk from Linux before attempting to install Windows 2000.
-BrentMagazines *always* include lot's a free stuff with their subscriptions. This can hardly be claimed to be "unsolicited". Why, Just recently I recieved a poster with my Sys Admin magazine, and a CD with my Java Developers Journal. Oh, yeah, and a cuecat was sent to those who had Wired subscriptions.
-BrentMost likely, people who received the C&D got their CueCat from Radio Shack and therefore this doesn't even apply to them. A few others probably did recieve their CueCat with their Forbes and Wired subscription, but in that case it wasn't mailed in violation of subsection (a) either.
So, no one can ignore their C&D.
-BrentThat wasn't, and still doesn't seem to be a concern with Microsoft. So, why should they stop one company, and not another.
If AOL/Time Warner eventually breaks Anti-trust law, tehn they should get the same right to drag a court case out for years and years like MS did.
-BrentThe biggest thing that bugs me about all this is that so many people whine that Microsoft shouldn't be broken up because they were just "successful", even though their "success" was due to breaking the law. Yet at the same time they say that it's wrong for 2 successful companies to want to be more successful.
I find this the height of all hypocrisy. Let's punish companies that break the law by breaking them up. But if a company is successful, let's let them be more successful as long as they haven't broken the law. Neither AOL or Time Warner has been proven to have broken the law. So if they believe that the deal will make them be more successful, then they should be free to do it.
-BrentYou're just jealous because They are successful, aren't you?
-BrentWait a minute! What did the government imply that they would do? They offered 6 year work visas to those how wanted to work in the US. The 6 years are up, and back go the workers. So where's the problem?
-BrentHow in tarnish could setting up a licensing/support/partnership with a Linux distributor be 'bad'? This provides a channel for the company work work through with their Linux needs, strengthening their experience with Linux. It strengthens the Linux distributor because they have customers. customers is good. So it's a win, win situation all around.
Can you imagine Microsoft claiming that having companies license Windows 2000 from them is 'negative'?
-BrentIf you need to watch for confidential data leaving the company over the corporate network, then you do it. The data is all the companies anyways. You aren't running a public ISP where customers expect that you aren't slurping CC numbers. Or a phone company where people expect to be able to share their whoas without it becoming public knowledge.
Now, if you're concerned that if by monitoring the companies data, that you'd be exposed to confidential information that you feel would be detrimental if you had access to, then you need to go to your management and talk to them about it. I'm sure they'd be more then willing to do anything they can to make it possible to do your job without you being responsible for keeping secret.
-Brent-Brent
It's not the fans that Steve Jobs doesn't want to know what Apple is doing. It's the competitors who, if they would find out what Apple is planning, would announce that you should what 3 more years because MS^H^H, er the competition, is going to be releasing the exact same thing, but better.
I'm sure that if Steve Jobs had a way of letting the fans know about developments without the "competitors" being able to make claims that would cause non-fans to not buy Apples products, he'd do that. But I think for know, if you really want Apple to be successful for you, you need to support Apple and work with them.
-BrentOther people have mentioned this before, but I guess it should be repeated. No one cares what you license your own code with except you. But if you use an "almost" GPL license, then don't whine if you find that you can't get your code accepted in a GPL distro.
-BrentWell, you acknowledged that your Grandpa didn't install Windows, so therefore he just had to how to use "X". In this case Windows.
My Grandpa didn't install Windows, it came on the computer, but since then he has installed - on his own - various software titles. Could he have done this on Linux? I dunno, I doubt it... It doesn't get much easier than putting the CD in and clicking OK a couple of times...Well, You can have applications autorun from the CD in Linux when the CD is inserted, just like on Windows. A few OK's and the app is installed. Don't see a major difference between Linux and Windows here.
Windows also has a very consistent look and feel. 99% of Windows apps have similar menu options, a consistent toolbar appearance, etc. With Linux, that familiarity is lacking (at least in my experiences).That's silly. Microsoft doesn't even have a common look and feel between their own apps. I just upgraded from Office 97 to Office 2000 and all the menu's and widgets changed again. No more Services menu in Outlook. I still haven't figured out how to set Outlook up the way I had it before. Media Player has some sort of wierd skin now. Internet Explorer's scrollbars change color.
Non MS apps are even worse. Some of them don't have scrollbars that scroll with the mouse wheel. Some of them use old widgets. No, Windows is not any more consistant then Linux. But Like doesn't try to claim to be consistant. If you need consistancy, only run KDE apps, or Gnome apps.
The difference between Linux and Windows is not the ease of use, it's how much you already know. Must people who struggled to learn Windows, think that Linux is too hard. But what they are forgetting is that they struggled to learn Windows also.
-BrentThe question isn't whether your grandpa could install Linux. The question is whether he could install Windows. I'd guess he probably couldn't. That doesn't mean that Windows is easier or harder then Linux. Probably, you'd find that overall, they are both even in terms of illiterate computer users to be able to learn how to use them.
-BrentAren't things like corba and bonobo methods for communicating with applications? Either I don't understand Bonobo, or I don't understand the question, or I've had too much Mountain Dew.
It is a new concept for Microsoft. :) It's obvious they haven't gotten it yet. But Microsoft clearly said that they were doing this (porting apps to Linux) solely to attract Linux users to Windows 2000. I, however, think it wass have the opposite effect.
-BrentIt's obvious. People won't switch OS's unless all their data still works. Microsoft only makes MS Office for the Mac, because it allows poeple to in the future, take that data with them when they finally upgrade to Windows 2000. If MS makes Office for Linux, the reason they are doing that is because they concede that people *will* be using Linux on the desktop. Office just allows Linux users to then migrate back to Windows 2000 effortlessly. Office for Linux is just a way for MS to rein back in their marketshare to Windows again.
-BrentGun control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Not scumbags. So, even though scumbags will always be assured of having guns, upstanding citizens will not. I guess that theory is wrong.
-BrentThat's what business is. You provide a service that someone wants and get something in return for it. This could be pizza delivery, babysitting, carpet cleaning, painting, a ton of things. Rob provided a website. A lot of people 'wanted' it, and he got something in return.
The whiners that wanted the source, OTOH, just wanted to be able to use slash without having to give anything in return. It was Rob's site, and Rob's work. They should have written their own code if they wanted it. Instead, he gave it to you guys, and now what. You think you deserve to demand from him every little feature you desire. Well, like Rob said, it's not going to happen.
-BrentRob just can't win, can he? Before, when the code wasn't available, people whined that he was a hypocrite for promoting open source, but not supporting it himself and letting others hack the code. Now that the code is finally open, and he points out that anyone can provide code, people whine because he should write the code all by himself. He should just quit releasing his changes to the source again. leaches...
-Brent