The problem with certifying the distros is that it turns into Red Hat and Red Hat compatible. People will just forget about things like Slackware, or lesser-known distros, or any distro that isn't supported by a company. If I make a distribution by myself, does that mean the program won't run on it? There has to be some overall general certification, and just the kernel isn't enough.
Except for maybe asking Linus to certify the program/device, there's no real certification for the OS because it's free. Here, of course, we see the bad parts of that fact (well, that and RealPlayer). The thing is, ideally, if a program doesn't work properly, you change it so it does work. That's the point of free software. I think it should be the distros that certify programs since each is different.
No, it's not a hoax. The story has been out for some time and was actually first reported May 5th. UIN #1 is the ICQ server, and is used for sending system messages to clients. The message is legit, as many users have received similar messages before.
Sure. Hams mostly know that if you take two frequencies, add a little bit of math, and a lot of power with a short distance, you get signal mixing. A high frequency and a low frequency comes out as a medium frequency. To most involved in radio this is considered a bad thing as it adds to unnecessary clutter on the airwaves.
Everything depends on the situation. As anyone involved with radio knows, each band has different advantages and disadvantages. Lower frequencies penetrate obstacles, but require huge amounts of power to work efficiently. Higher frequencies have smaller antennas, consume lower power, but don't go as far. When we're dealing with going through walls, really the barrier is in the single-GHz range. Having experimented with 10GHz radios myself, something as simple as a bush can severely degrade ths signal.
If, on the other hand, walls don't matter, why not use infrared? We already use it for remote controls, and the bandwidth is certainly there. Another advantage (or disadvantage, depending) at higher frequencies is more directionality. In the 2-digit GHz range and above, antennas aren't wires anymore, they're dishes. A signal is beamed in a direction. And even better between that and the IR band, directionality means you can have more users. Signals can cross each other without interfering. But then again, if this is for indoor use, the point becomes moot. Higher freq's are used for outdoor communication when line-of-sight transmission is possible.
The solution, therefore, really depends on the problem. If it's indoors, you can mount an IR transmitter to the wall and move your computer around as you wish. If we're talking about your car, that's not likely unless you can put a satellite transmitter on your roof.
So what most companies are doing, now that the range between 100 and 1000 MHz is just about used up, is they're going just above that to 2GHz, where we had the problems mentioned in a previous article. Everyone's trying to use it, and they're causing interference.
In short, this problem ain't gonna be solved soon, and in any case it all depends.
"By using this site, you signify your assent to these terms of use." In other words, in order to view the terms of use, I have to accept them. Also, they can change them at any time, and whether or not I know that, I automatically agree to it, merely because I use their website. Let's not forget that "Without limitation of the foregoing, DISNEY shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the universe and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions."... "By uploading materials to any Forum or submitting any materials to us, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us a perpetual, royaltyfree, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, and distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed throughout the universe. In addition, you warrant that all so-called moral rights in those materials have been waived."
Seems to me this was the same wording that appeared on Geocities after it was consumed by Yahoo!, and everyone made a fuss about it before they changed their TOS not once but twice to stop the complaining. Still, we allow this to exist on the net. Why?
Disney makes it clear that you aren't allowed to download anything from the site if you live in Cuba
"This is the entire agreement between us relating to the subject matter herein and shall not be modified except in writing, signed by both parties." -- Doesn't that mean they can't modify their TOS unless I sign it first?
In any case, if you want to make claims of copyright infringement, Disney gives you a webpage of instructions
And, since I'm reproducing their TOS statement, it's against their TOS for me to be doing this right now.
"You agree to notify Microsoft immediately of any unauthorized use of your account or any other breach of security." -- Imagine if everyone followed that "rule" when they were breached?
You are not allowed to:
"use the Service in connection with surveys, contests", nor are you allowed to run a mailing list, or even send an email to more than one person, commercial or otherwise.
"Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including email addresses, without their consent." -- I suppose this would apply to the address book as well? Quick, purge them now!
Almost forgot. It's against their TOS for me to be doing this right now.
"Pages may not contain, nor contain links to, any of the following:"
"...information or material allowing one to circumvent manufacture-installed copy protected devices and any other form of cracker utility." -- Their policy on DeCSS I supose.
"We support your Freedom of Speech and expression, however, we ask that you understand that there is a responsibility associated with this right." And that's just preliminary findings.
The problem is that the expert linux user world is changing, and as more newbies get involved in linux, more mistakes will be made. Since in most cases they own root privileges on their computer, it's just a simple matter of getting them to install something as root. As the intelligence of the average linux user goes down (as did that of the Windows user long ago), the easier it will be to get them to do what you want -- something stupid. It's almost impossible to secure something from the guy in front of the keyboard.
I don't think Unix will die. Operating systems don't die, some merely are forgotten about, rare or even extinct. What's important with the free software revolution is that we have more than just Windows available to us, and as long as this is the case, and as long as we have free software, we have the freedom of choosing our OS, whether it be Windows, Mac, Be or Linux. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I have a friend who has been standing by macs forever, whereas my dad refuses to use linux because the printer isn't 100% compatible yet. It's a matter of freedom to choose, and with that, nothing, not even Unix, will die.
From the dozen or so comments I've read so far, a particular trend is emerging: everyone is questioning the version number skip, but forgiving Netscape for it. If this were MSIE which was skipping version numbers, everyone would be against them, but here they take the side of Netscape. Why? Is it really any different? Everyone feels the need to follow an anti-Microsoft, anti-AOL (notice how the negative comments were directed to AOL whereas the positive ones toward Netscape), pro-Linux sentiment, irregardless of the issues. Everyone needs to find a bad guy and focus hatred on them. But the question is whether or not Netscape is a bad guy here simply for inflating their version numbers.
I personally don't believe in inflating version numbers, but I do realize the importance of image, and just looking at it, Netscape 6 looks and sounds better than Netscape 5 simply because it's a higher number. Besides, it's not like there's any law about how version numbers go, it's up to the programmer to use his judgement.
The article's only been up a few minutes and already news.cnet.com doesn't seem to be responding (Cnet itself seems to be working fine). Slashdotted maybe? You can definitely tell there's interest in Mozilla here.
Somehow I doubt USENET is going anywhere fast. Deja.com and CNet's Help.com are commercializing USENET, exploiting it as a resource. Deja(news) wouldn't exist without it, and Help.com are exploiting the people who use USENET (I should know, I'm one of them) for their own gains. For those of you who have never been there, CNET gives newbies the impression that they own the forum, and doesn't even put up an FAQ for users to look at before they post. As a result, groups like alt.chat-programs.icq are swelled up with clueless newbies who assume we all work for CNET.
I wonder if ABC News will be yet another defendant in the lawsuit. Knowing the justice system, the MPAA could probably accuse them of giving away too much information.
Well I'm glad they've finally hit the alpha stage. Now we'll just have to wait for the various less-informed to uninstall their browsers and switch to Mozilla just to find out it doesn't work half the time. Strange considering most of the problems seem simple enough to fix...
I agree with using a Slashbox for this kind of thing, but it also boils down to the very nature of Slashdot, in that only a handful of articles are posted in any given day, whereas a wealth of information is submitted. This is never actually explained, but could be due to time restraints or to quality control. If it's time, then just don't edit the articles and categorize them. If it's quality control, then the articles that do pass a certain level of usefullness (and I know there are some -- I submit them!) can be posted, while not necessarily on the front page (this may require a slight overhaul of the backend code). I think user preferences on what news to see should be adding more to the front page, rather than removing from it. But this all depends on whether or not our fearless leaders have the time to post more articles in a day.
So overhaul Slashdot. Or if that's too hard, just make it a Slashbox and put it off on another page (or heck, another website even -- maybe someone else creating a website for this purpose and, through an rdf file, having a Slashbox, would be the best (or should I say easiest for/.) solution to the issue).
From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. What about a domain like Microsoftsucks.com? Or a parody website of some sort? Would they also need permission? Or is this just for auctions?
One of the first points made in this article is that linux is a competitor. That begs the question: is linux and its potential competition in the x86 market good for Windows and its users? Will it mean Microsoft has to actually put out a good product in order to properly compete?
I agree with the view that it's a scapegoat. It's really the same thing here. The only difference I can see is that before, copying would give an imperfect copy, whether it be a VHS or audio tape, or whatever. It would never be a perfect replica. But with the digital age, now perfect copies can be made and distributed faster and more easily, so this becomes a problem. Where there's a will, there's a way, and closed-source copyright protection is almost always a bad thing, as evidenced by the entire DeCSS fiasco. They'll come up with ways of copying the stuff, and the companies will use their collective efforts to keep it to a minimum, but really we're not dealing with any new ground here. I remember when software companies were (and many still are) furious about illegal copies about their software, that they developped various means of copy protection. Unfortunately, of course, they didn't work.
It's a lose-lose scenario for them I'm afraid to say.
"...because I generally think MSNBC does a fairly good job of presenting things in a unbiased way, with regards to things remotely related to Microsoft, and for that, I applaud them."
MSNBC was the only major internet news site that didn't cover Bill Gates getting a pie in the face.
Setting aside what others have commented on, I bring to your attention a few other notes of interest about Yahoo!'s letter.
1) It's in English. Does anyone else see a problem sending an English letter from a Quebec law firm to the (supposedly) French-speaking author of a French language website in a French province?
2) Yahoo! seems to imply in its letter that they have a trademark on their website. Can this really be true? "Your company's unauthorized use of the YAHOO! trade-mark and the design of its web sites"(emphasis mine) "... our client must insist that you immediately... permanently cease use of... its well-known web page design."
So my question is, setting aside everything else about the site, would Yahoo! really have a case here if this was just an issue on page design? Or would this just be like they Etoys/etoy thing where they add in stuff to sway everyone's opinion in their favour, even if it's irrelevant?
Yahoo!? Overboard? Surely you jest. After all, the cessation of use of the trademark and design of the site (apparently the design of the Yahoo! Site can be copyrighted) should happen within two or three business days, and of course they would have to accompany that with written documentation to prove that they will never use the trademark again, and of course above all that the site must be pulled from the net forever. I mean, it just makes so much sense. Yahoo is right here. (For those of you who don't get the joke, read the letter again
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with certifying the distros is that it turns into Red Hat and Red Hat compatible. People will just forget about things like Slackware, or lesser-known distros, or any distro that isn't supported by a company. If I make a distribution by myself, does that mean the program won't run on it? There has to be some overall general certification, and just the kernel isn't enough.
Except for maybe asking Linus to certify the program/device, there's no real certification for the OS because it's free. Here, of course, we see the bad parts of that fact (well, that and RealPlayer). The thing is, ideally, if a program doesn't work properly, you change it so it does work. That's the point of free software. I think it should be the distros that certify programs since each is different.
There are also a few questionable UINs in the 4-digit range. Don't ask me how they got them and unfortunately I forget what the numbers are.
Actually, no. There are no UINs below 1001, aside from the almost-theoretical UIN 1. Mirabilis staff uins have 5 digits, usually ending in 4 zeroes.
Forget June 7th, the story was first reported on May 5th!
No, it's not a hoax. The story has been out for some time and was actually first reported May 5th. UIN #1 is the ICQ server, and is used for sending system messages to clients. The message is legit, as many users have received similar messages before.
Sure. Hams mostly know that if you take two frequencies, add a little bit of math, and a lot of power with a short distance, you get signal mixing. A high frequency and a low frequency comes out as a medium frequency. To most involved in radio this is considered a bad thing as it adds to unnecessary clutter on the airwaves.
Everything depends on the situation. As anyone involved with radio knows, each band has different advantages and disadvantages. Lower frequencies penetrate obstacles, but require huge amounts of power to work efficiently. Higher frequencies have smaller antennas, consume lower power, but don't go as far. When we're dealing with going through walls, really the barrier is in the single-GHz range. Having experimented with 10GHz radios myself, something as simple as a bush can severely degrade ths signal.
If, on the other hand, walls don't matter, why not use infrared? We already use it for remote controls, and the bandwidth is certainly there. Another advantage (or disadvantage, depending) at higher frequencies is more directionality. In the 2-digit GHz range and above, antennas aren't wires anymore, they're dishes. A signal is beamed in a direction. And even better between that and the IR band, directionality means you can have more users. Signals can cross each other without interfering. But then again, if this is for indoor use, the point becomes moot. Higher freq's are used for outdoor communication when line-of-sight transmission is possible.
The solution, therefore, really depends on the problem. If it's indoors, you can mount an IR transmitter to the wall and move your computer around as you wish. If we're talking about your car, that's not likely unless you can put a satellite transmitter on your roof.
So what most companies are doing, now that the range between 100 and 1000 MHz is just about used up, is they're going just above that to 2GHz, where we had the problems mentioned in a previous article. Everyone's trying to use it, and they're causing interference.
In short, this problem ain't gonna be solved soon, and in any case it all depends.
"By using this site, you signify your assent to these terms of use." In other words, in order to view the terms of use, I have to accept them. Also, they can change them at any time, and whether or not I know that, I automatically agree to it, merely because I use their website. Let's not forget that "Without limitation of the foregoing, DISNEY shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the universe and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions." ... "By uploading materials to any Forum or submitting any materials to us, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us a perpetual, royaltyfree, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, and distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed throughout the universe. In addition, you warrant that all so-called moral rights in those materials have been waived."
Seems to me this was the same wording that appeared on Geocities after it was consumed by Yahoo!, and everyone made a fuss about it before they changed their TOS not once but twice to stop the complaining. Still, we allow this to exist on the net. Why?
Disney makes it clear that you aren't allowed to download anything from the site if you live in Cuba
"This is the entire agreement between us relating to the subject matter herein and shall not be modified except in writing, signed by both parties. " -- Doesn't that mean they can't modify their TOS unless I sign it first?
In any case, if you want to make claims of copyright infringement, Disney gives you a webpage of instructions
And, since I'm reproducing their TOS statement, it's against their TOS for me to be doing this right now.
MSN Hotmail
"You agree to notify Microsoft immediately of any unauthorized use of your account or any other breach of security." -- Imagine if everyone followed that "rule" when they were breached?
You are not allowed to:
"use the Service in connection with surveys, contests", nor are you allowed to run a mailing list, or even send an email to more than one person, commercial or otherwise.
"Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including email addresses, without their consent." -- I suppose this would apply to the address book as well? Quick, purge them now!
Almost forgot. It's against their TOS for me to be doing this right now.
Tripod
"Tripod reserves the right to delete any page at any time for any reason or no reason at all."
"Membership is available to anyone over the age of 13" ... "Tripod does not discriminate on the basis of age"
"You may not use the [member] name of any person other than yourself, the name of any entity or organization"
You are not allowed to post "Material that" ... "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value."
Angelfire's TOS is similar.
FortuneCity
"Pages may not contain, nor contain links to, any of the following:"
"...information or material allowing one to circumvent manufacture-installed copy protected devices and any other form of cracker utility." -- Their policy on DeCSS I supose.
"We support your Freedom of Speech and expression, however, we ask that you understand that there is a responsibility associated with this right." And that's just preliminary findings.
The problem is that the expert linux user world is changing, and as more newbies get involved in linux, more mistakes will be made. Since in most cases they own root privileges on their computer, it's just a simple matter of getting them to install something as root. As the intelligence of the average linux user goes down (as did that of the Windows user long ago), the easier it will be to get them to do what you want -- something stupid. It's almost impossible to secure something from the guy in front of the keyboard.
I don't think Unix will die. Operating systems don't die, some merely are forgotten about, rare or even extinct. What's important with the free software revolution is that we have more than just Windows available to us, and as long as this is the case, and as long as we have free software, we have the freedom of choosing our OS, whether it be Windows, Mac, Be or Linux. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I have a friend who has been standing by macs forever, whereas my dad refuses to use linux because the printer isn't 100% compatible yet. It's a matter of freedom to choose, and with that, nothing, not even Unix, will die.
Shouldn't that be -2000? Come on!
I personally don't believe in inflating version numbers, but I do realize the importance of image, and just looking at it, Netscape 6 looks and sounds better than Netscape 5 simply because it's a higher number. Besides, it's not like there's any law about how version numbers go, it's up to the programmer to use his judgement.
The article's only been up a few minutes and already news.cnet.com doesn't seem to be responding (Cnet itself seems to be working fine). Slashdotted maybe? You can definitely tell there's interest in Mozilla here.
Exploitation is the key to USENET's success.
I wonder if ABC News will be yet another defendant in the lawsuit. Knowing the justice system, the MPAA could probably accuse them of giving away too much information.
Well I'm glad they've finally hit the alpha stage. Now we'll just have to wait for the various less-informed to uninstall their browsers and switch to Mozilla just to find out it doesn't work half the time. Strange considering most of the problems seem simple enough to fix...
So overhaul Slashdot. Or if that's too hard, just make it a Slashbox and put it off on another page (or heck, another website even -- maybe someone else creating a website for this purpose and, through an rdf file, having a Slashbox, would be the best (or should I say easiest for /.) solution to the issue).
From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. What about a domain like Microsoftsucks.com? Or a parody website of some sort? Would they also need permission? Or is this just for auctions?
One of the first points made in this article is that linux is a competitor. That begs the question: is linux and its potential competition in the x86 market good for Windows and its users? Will it mean Microsoft has to actually put out a good product in order to properly compete?
It's a lose-lose scenario for them I'm afraid to say.
MSNBC was the only major internet news site that didn't cover Bill Gates getting a pie in the face.
Maybe it was just a coincidence...
1) It's in English. Does anyone else see a problem sending an English letter from a Quebec law firm to the (supposedly) French-speaking author of a French language website in a French province?
2) Yahoo! seems to imply in its letter that they have a trademark on their website. Can this really be true? ... permanently cease use of ... its well-known web page design."
"Your company's unauthorized use of the YAHOO! trade-mark and the design of its web sites"(emphasis mine)
"... our client must insist that you immediately
So my question is, setting aside everything else about the site, would Yahoo! really have a case here if this was just an issue on page design? Or would this just be like they Etoys/etoy thing where they add in stuff to sway everyone's opinion in their favour, even if it's irrelevant?
"it (expletive deleted) 70 days"
Wouldn't that be more "took"? I don't see any naughty words here.
Yahoo!? Overboard? Surely you jest. After all, the cessation of use of the trademark and design of the site (apparently the design of the Yahoo! Site can be copyrighted) should happen within two or three business days, and of course they would have to accompany that with written documentation to prove that they will never use the trademark again, and of course above all that the site must be pulled from the net forever. I mean, it just makes so much sense. Yahoo is right here. (For those of you who don't get the joke, read the letter again