Sorry if I flew off the handle in my previous post - bad day at work.
Companies that shouldn't have been in business in the first place... if you have a better product that works on the same OS.. why run away.. weak people.. thats all..
That's just it - if you know that you make a better product, you still can't succeed if Microsoft goes into your market, because Microsoft won't let OEMs install your better program rather than the Microsoft product. This is the essence of what the trial was about - Microsoft uses its OS market share to destroy competitors not on the basis of product quality (like I said, I've heard that IE is better than NS) but through clout that it has from its OS monopoly. Even a competitor with a better product can't get started once Microsoft announces that they will make the product too, even if they never end up going into that market.
Sure consumers could just get the program separately, but I think we can agree that few new computer owners will go out and replace the provided Microsoft software with other products. The reality of the market is that OEMs control what software Mom has on her PC, and until about a year or so ago Microsoft controlled the OEMs with the choke chain of Windows pricing.
Sure, if MacNN was under NDA, then they shouldn't be spreading that information around. But even then, now that I've read the information at MacNN, there's nothing that prevents me from passing it on. Once the information reaches someone who isn't under NDA, it's too late. The secret's out, and Adobe will have to take it out on whomever leaked. They can't just sue the press for publishing something like this if it was given to MacNN as a tip.
There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows.
Just like DR-DOS, Netscape, and others have tried to make money? Before this trial, Microsoft let companies make money in the windows market if they made a product that Microsoft didn't make yet, or if they were a windows symbiote (anti-virus companies are a good example here) that Microsoft hadn't assimilated yet. Remember the testimony during the trial about companies who would abandon plans for products just on the rumor that Microsoft would be entering that market?
Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE.
Why can't OEMs put Netscape on the machine with IE, and let the user decide? Because Microsoft bullied them not to, that's why. I've heard that IE is really a better browser; I haven't used it. But even if that were the case Microsoft wasn't willing to let the consumer decide on the merits of the software. Instead, they used their OS monopoly to take over the browser market as well.
Linux brought the internet where it is today.
Y'know, if you're going to try to allay criticism of the holes in your argument by taking one or two counterpositions, you could at least pick something factual for the counterposition. Linux has just begun in the last few years to run more of the Internet - to be specific, Unix and open source made the Internet what it is today. I hope that Linux makes the Internet even better tomorrow - I don't expect Microsoft to do so.
?They have a monopoly! It?s bad!? Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?
I care because half of the intranet pages at work only display correctly in IE. I care because in order to access my work Unix machine I have to use a Windows machine at home, even though I have a Linux box at home too, because my company's VPN software only runs under Windows. I wouldn't care about Microsoft being a monopoly if their software was high-quality and they arrived at their monopoly by making the best products, but I bitterly resent being forced to use mediocre software as a result of their illegally-acquired monopoly, and I'm appalled that such mediocrity is the standard to which the consumer has been forced to become accustomed.
I haven't signed an NDA, but that does not, by virtue of not signing, give me the right to publish trade secrets, regardless of how they came to me.
Of course you have that right - this is free speech. Now, if you had a contractual relationship with Adobe and your speech violates the terms of that contract, you may end up in court. But if you were to tell me a trade secret, I'm under no obligation to keep it a secret. It's Adobe's job and your job to keep their secrets secret, not mine.
The right to publish a work is protected by copyright law, and the right to use a particular technology is protected by patent law. If you want to protect the right to pass on ideas, some sort of contract is needed, and can only be enforced on signatories to the contract. So there's nothing to stop a third party from telling people what Photoshop 6 is like, displaying screenshots, etc.
The issue is weather ANY information is proprietary.
The responsibility for keeping proprietary information secret falls on the company, not on the public at large. The government only supports certain kinds of protection for IP - patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If you don't want to register your work under those protections, it's up to you to keep your lips zipped. It's certainly not the fault of the press if one of the people you tell secrets to isn't very trustworthy.
It's a testament to how honest the majority of people are that the entire industry hasn't gone belly up.
Maybe I'm more cynical, but I imagine it has more to do with the combination of giant credit card companies that want their money back and laws that make credit card frauds over $50 the responsibility of the card company, not the cardholder (assuming adequate notification, reasonable security on the part of the cardholder, etc.). I don't think a business that starts impersonating its customers through their credit cards is going to be filling credit card orders for much longer.
How was that insightful? Perhaps a little funny, in a sort of South-Parkianesque shock at such unnecessary profanity, but it really wasn't insightful at all since it didn't provide any insight into the topic at hand or the post to which it was a response. It was just a simple expression of bile, the same as all of the Natalie Portman trolls (well, except for the funny ones which I secretly enjoy).
I have no idea why anyone would moderate up a post which stated that they (the moderator) were "fucking stupid", especially without any supporting information. Hope this goes to meta-moderation...
Beethoven and Dvorak both stole the "Ode to Joy" melody note-for-note from the public domain. Yet if I were to quote a Beatles refrain in a pop song of my own, I would face a lawsuit.
So how does Puff Daddy get away with it? Maybe you need to "accidentally" shoot a couple people, and they won't sue you anymore...
Well, you do have to upgrade libraries if you're installing software that uses upgraded libraries - that's the whole point of including package dependencies in an RPM, right? Sure, there's no requirement that SuSe ship with the same library versions that RH does, but it is possible to upgrade the libraries if you are picking up software that requires later versions of them.
Since I installed Mandrake 6.1, 95% of the time that I go to download a package update I can find one that has been packaged by Mandrake - I've had zero problems with those. The remaining 5% I've had to install from tarballs, but even then I can't remember the last time that configure && make && make install didn't work correctly.
Sure, it's a little more work some times if you're mixing packages from different distributions, but I still don't know of software which would work on one distro and not another as long as the kernel and relevant libraries have correct versions.
With 150+ distros, you don't call this fragmentation? Programs that only run on 1, 2 or 3 of the 150+ distros is not fragmentation?
What programs are those? I've seen software that's marketed as only RedHat, for example, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work on other distributions. I haven't had any problems with software being distribution-specific.
But nobody would force you to use every new micro revision. The project leaders can designate a particular release the stable one every so often, but people who want bug fixes quickly (I've waited for kmail bug fixes too, and submitted one of my own) can still get them from the main distribution.
I don't see the advantage of not releasing often - isn't that how you encourage bug fixes and developer mindshare in your project? Users who want stable, routine releases can wait for major revision numbers if they want, but that isn't really the way to encourage developers, IMHO.
I see how that would give you a problem, but mostly I was wondering why linuxuk.org.uk was using MS Word and/or MS SQL. Surely they aren't doing that, so what other circumstances could cause the '?' quote thing?
I'm surprised to see the '?' replacing the apostrophe character in this interview - isn't that normally the case with MS web publishing tools and their "smart" quotes? I'm viewing this with Netscape 4.7 on HP-UX.
In fact, its gotten so boiler-plate that I'm surprised there isn't #include eula.h language on the distribution media. To wit: This software is protected by the USC EULA Software Act of 2001 and such.
Sounds like we need a few specific EULAs, so that people could be more familiar with the details of each. There are a few common free software licenses (in no particular order: GPL, BSD, Artistic, etc.) and thus it's much simpler to know what a user of the software can do. Whereas each EULA must be studied carefully, even if it is 99% similar to all the other ones. If the industry would just set up the "consumer games EULA", the "business database/server software EULA", and so forth, things would be much simpler.
Better yet for everyone to switch to free software and forget the meshugenah EULAs, but I'm not holding my breath.
One of the primary motivations and goals of science is the pressure it places on society to grow, adapt, and change to accomodate eternally new situations and events. Without that, you might as well live in Imperial China, where scientific innovation could have gotten you beheaded (though society was 'protected' for thousands of years at a stretch).
For a fascinating extrapolation on this (since we're already talking about sci-fi), you really should check out a series of books called "Chung Kuo" by David Wingrove. The series is based on the premise that the Chinese conquer the world sometime in the 21st century, build a giant city that covers the land mass of the planet, and impose a state of Confucian changelessness. The books follow the actions of those who then seek to bring about Change - they're either revolutionaries or terrorists, depending on your perspective.
Warning: you probably won't enjoy these books unless you're OK with a Red/Green/Blue Mars level of political infighting throughout the story. I've only finished the first five of eight novels so far, so I'm hoping that the end of the series is as good as the beginning.
Re:Why all Internet access should be taxed
on
EU Web Tax Proposed
·
· Score: 1
The theory behind the tollways was that they were special freeways built specifically for commuter use within the Chicago area. That's why I'm not particularly upset that the tolls are still being collected - people still commute on them, according to the morning traffic report.
A gas tax would be the most direct way to charge the real users of the roads, but that probably wouldn't fly politically in IL right now. Yesterday the cheapest gas I could find out in the 'burbs was $2.09/gal. It's funny how every time gas prices go up, politicians talk about removing gas taxes, rather than addressing the real problem - you can't get anywhere in this area without a car, because we have lousy mass transit in the suburbs. At least I can laugh at the SUV-driving soccer moms, who are paying $50/fillup.
Re:This has been coming for a while, now... [OT]
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Nope, Schaumburg.
Re:This has been coming for a while, now...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Do you by chance happen to work for Motorola?
Specifically, I work for the part that bought a VPN that only supports Windows clients, rather than the part of the company that bought a VPN with clients for many different OSs. D'oh!
Thanks for the tips - I'll take a look at Canvas. I've used FrameMaker for technical documents but never really thought of it as a DTP package. Perhaps I'll re-evaluate it on that basis.
Re:Why all Internet access should be taxed
on
EU Web Tax Proposed
·
· Score: 2
I live in IL but use the toll roads maybe twice a year. As far as I'm concerned, they should be paid for entirely by usage taxes. I'd rather my taxes fund some sort of mass transit around the NW suburbs, for example.
Of course, you probably couldn't get the toll roads passed by the legislature in the first place with that platform, but I think it makes sense now. Tolls combine a usage tax with a gentle encouragement to use a more efficient means of transportation, like the train.
The EU is trying to ensure that the proper taxes are being paid for. With online commerce the EU is simply protecting itself.
What expenditures does the EU have that require this tax income? You can say "proper taxes" all that you want, but if I am in the EU and buy software from the U.S., what services has the EU provided for me that they must be reimbursed for it with a tax? The U.S. government (read: U.S. taxpayers) has already paid (through supporting regulatory agencies, the courts, and the police) for the production of that good. The only costs to the EU for me to download that good from the US are the communications lines and the electricity, which I'm sure are already taxed in the EU.
So by letting the U.S. do all of the work, and collecting the taxes anyway, the EU is making a pure profit off of its member countries' citizens (or are you EU citizens now?). I don't agree that the government is entitled to a particular income, especially when it hasn't done any work to deserve it.
But a tax on purchases from the U.S. won't go back to the USDA, the U.S. FTC, or any other U.S. regulatory agency which can protect you from that sort of thing. You can bet once the EU gets their hands on the money, they aren't going to ship it back across the Atlantic.
Since there isn't an international regulatory body with authority at both ends of the transaction, there's nothing that the EU can do if you get cheated out of your software or music purchase on the web. The EU is just trying to add income which isn't matched by their expenditures (since presumably the U.S. is already watching for fraudulent merchants in the U.S.), and the result is pure profit for them.
Not that the U.S. wouldn't try to do the same thing, of course, and probably will. The situation with state taxes within the U.S. is a little better, since there are federal agencies that can regulate both ends of an interstate transaction. However, even in that case I would rather see the states raise taxes on those who use state resources (UPS/Fedex, and the merchant) rather than taxing purchasers from another state directly. The merchants and UPS/Fedex can just up their prices a little, and everybody can be happy without adding torturous (sp?) new tax laws.
Re:This has been coming for a while, now...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
For years, Windows has needed the system CD for just about any change made to the system (your mouse has moved - please insert the disk "Windows 95" in Drive D:).
The other day I had to insert the Windows 95 CD and reboot just to change my gateway address on my home network from 10.0.0.1 to 10.0.0.2. I have no idea why you would need the OS disk to change that information (let alone why you need to reboot). This is with Windows 95, upgraded from 3.1.
I wouldn't need to boot into Windows at all, except for:
My wife's desktop publishing software (anyone know of a good Linux replacement for Pressworks?)
My company's VPN client, which only runs under windows. Since they refuse to set up a ssh gateway, when I want to work from home I have to dual-boot.
Hmm... Just like Compuserve used gifs based on Unisys' technology, or mp3[*] is based on Fraunhofer's technology? I would be very careful to find out if the technology is encumbered by any current or pending patent claims before making it the standard. Whether or not the company says that it won't charge for the use of the technology, once enough people move to the new standard it starts looking real attractive to a corporation to go back on that agreement. Don't get fooled again.
[*] apparently Fraunhofer believes that their mp3 compression patent is broad enough that it is impossible to create mp3s (using any algorithm) without infringing on their patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry if I flew off the handle in my previous post - bad day at work.
That's just it - if you know that you make a better product, you still can't succeed if Microsoft goes into your market, because Microsoft won't let OEMs install your better program rather than the Microsoft product. This is the essence of what the trial was about - Microsoft uses its OS market share to destroy competitors not on the basis of product quality (like I said, I've heard that IE is better than NS) but through clout that it has from its OS monopoly. Even a competitor with a better product can't get started once Microsoft announces that they will make the product too, even if they never end up going into that market.
Sure consumers could just get the program separately, but I think we can agree that few new computer owners will go out and replace the provided Microsoft software with other products. The reality of the market is that OEMs control what software Mom has on her PC, and until about a year or so ago Microsoft controlled the OEMs with the choke chain of Windows pricing.
Sure, if MacNN was under NDA, then they shouldn't be spreading that information around. But even then, now that I've read the information at MacNN, there's nothing that prevents me from passing it on. Once the information reaches someone who isn't under NDA, it's too late. The secret's out, and Adobe will have to take it out on whomever leaked. They can't just sue the press for publishing something like this if it was given to MacNN as a tip.
Just like DR-DOS, Netscape, and others have tried to make money? Before this trial, Microsoft let companies make money in the windows market if they made a product that Microsoft didn't make yet, or if they were a windows symbiote (anti-virus companies are a good example here) that Microsoft hadn't assimilated yet. Remember the testimony during the trial about companies who would abandon plans for products just on the rumor that Microsoft would be entering that market?
Why can't OEMs put Netscape on the machine with IE, and let the user decide? Because Microsoft bullied them not to, that's why. I've heard that IE is really a better browser; I haven't used it. But even if that were the case Microsoft wasn't willing to let the consumer decide on the merits of the software. Instead, they used their OS monopoly to take over the browser market as well.
Y'know, if you're going to try to allay criticism of the holes in your argument by taking one or two counterpositions, you could at least pick something factual for the counterposition. Linux has just begun in the last few years to run more of the Internet - to be specific, Unix and open source made the Internet what it is today. I hope that Linux makes the Internet even better tomorrow - I don't expect Microsoft to do so.
I care because half of the intranet pages at work only display correctly in IE. I care because in order to access my work Unix machine I have to use a Windows machine at home, even though I have a Linux box at home too, because my company's VPN software only runs under Windows. I wouldn't care about Microsoft being a monopoly if their software was high-quality and they arrived at their monopoly by making the best products, but I bitterly resent being forced to use mediocre software as a result of their illegally-acquired monopoly, and I'm appalled that such mediocrity is the standard to which the consumer has been forced to become accustomed.
Soapbox indeed...
Of course you have that right - this is free speech. Now, if you had a contractual relationship with Adobe and your speech violates the terms of that contract, you may end up in court. But if you were to tell me a trade secret, I'm under no obligation to keep it a secret. It's Adobe's job and your job to keep their secrets secret, not mine.
The right to publish a work is protected by copyright law, and the right to use a particular technology is protected by patent law. If you want to protect the right to pass on ideas, some sort of contract is needed, and can only be enforced on signatories to the contract. So there's nothing to stop a third party from telling people what Photoshop 6 is like, displaying screenshots, etc.
The responsibility for keeping proprietary information secret falls on the company, not on the public at large. The government only supports certain kinds of protection for IP - patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If you don't want to register your work under those protections, it's up to you to keep your lips zipped. It's certainly not the fault of the press if one of the people you tell secrets to isn't very trustworthy.
IANAL, of course.
Maybe I'm more cynical, but I imagine it has more to do with the combination of giant credit card companies that want their money back and laws that make credit card frauds over $50 the responsibility of the card company, not the cardholder (assuming adequate notification, reasonable security on the part of the cardholder, etc.). I don't think a business that starts impersonating its customers through their credit cards is going to be filling credit card orders for much longer.
How was that insightful? Perhaps a little funny, in a sort of South-Parkianesque shock at such unnecessary profanity, but it really wasn't insightful at all since it didn't provide any insight into the topic at hand or the post to which it was a response. It was just a simple expression of bile, the same as all of the Natalie Portman trolls (well, except for the funny ones which I secretly enjoy).
I have no idea why anyone would moderate up a post which stated that they (the moderator) were "fucking stupid", especially without any supporting information. Hope this goes to meta-moderation...
The page crashes NS 4.61 on HP-UX also, although that seems to happen on a lot of pages.
So how does Puff Daddy get away with it? Maybe you need to "accidentally" shoot a couple people, and they won't sue you anymore...
Ah, but the years before the plague will be so blissful.
I'm off to start a rumor in marketing about this - something about a giant space walrus, with photon flippers or something!
Well, you do have to upgrade libraries if you're installing software that uses upgraded libraries - that's the whole point of including package dependencies in an RPM, right? Sure, there's no requirement that SuSe ship with the same library versions that RH does, but it is possible to upgrade the libraries if you are picking up software that requires later versions of them.
Since I installed Mandrake 6.1, 95% of the time that I go to download a package update I can find one that has been packaged by Mandrake - I've had zero problems with those. The remaining 5% I've had to install from tarballs, but even then I can't remember the last time that configure && make && make install didn't work correctly.
Sure, it's a little more work some times if you're mixing packages from different distributions, but I still don't know of software which would work on one distro and not another as long as the kernel and relevant libraries have correct versions.
What programs are those? I've seen software that's marketed as only RedHat, for example, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work on other distributions. I haven't had any problems with software being distribution-specific.
Thanks for sparing me - I suppose I can guess a broad outline, but the details will still be fun I hope.
But nobody would force you to use every new micro revision. The project leaders can designate a particular release the stable one every so often, but people who want bug fixes quickly (I've waited for kmail bug fixes too, and submitted one of my own) can still get them from the main distribution.
I don't see the advantage of not releasing often - isn't that how you encourage bug fixes and developer mindshare in your project? Users who want stable, routine releases can wait for major revision numbers if they want, but that isn't really the way to encourage developers, IMHO.
I see how that would give you a problem, but mostly I was wondering why linuxuk.org.uk was using MS Word and/or MS SQL. Surely they aren't doing that, so what other circumstances could cause the '?' quote thing?
I'm surprised to see the '?' replacing the apostrophe character in this interview - isn't that normally the case with MS web publishing tools and their "smart" quotes? I'm viewing this with Netscape 4.7 on HP-UX.
What?s up with that, linuxuk.org.uk?
Sounds like we need a few specific EULAs, so that people could be more familiar with the details of each. There are a few common free software licenses (in no particular order: GPL, BSD, Artistic, etc.) and thus it's much simpler to know what a user of the software can do. Whereas each EULA must be studied carefully, even if it is 99% similar to all the other ones. If the industry would just set up the "consumer games EULA", the "business database/server software EULA", and so forth, things would be much simpler.
Better yet for everyone to switch to free software and forget the meshugenah EULAs, but I'm not holding my breath.
For a fascinating extrapolation on this (since we're already talking about sci-fi), you really should check out a series of books called "Chung Kuo" by David Wingrove. The series is based on the premise that the Chinese conquer the world sometime in the 21st century, build a giant city that covers the land mass of the planet, and impose a state of Confucian changelessness. The books follow the actions of those who then seek to bring about Change - they're either revolutionaries or terrorists, depending on your perspective.
Warning: you probably won't enjoy these books unless you're OK with a Red/Green/Blue Mars level of political infighting throughout the story. I've only finished the first five of eight novels so far, so I'm hoping that the end of the series is as good as the beginning.
The theory behind the tollways was that they were special freeways built specifically for commuter use within the Chicago area. That's why I'm not particularly upset that the tolls are still being collected - people still commute on them, according to the morning traffic report.
A gas tax would be the most direct way to charge the real users of the roads, but that probably wouldn't fly politically in IL right now. Yesterday the cheapest gas I could find out in the 'burbs was $2.09/gal. It's funny how every time gas prices go up, politicians talk about removing gas taxes, rather than addressing the real problem - you can't get anywhere in this area without a car, because we have lousy mass transit in the suburbs. At least I can laugh at the SUV-driving soccer moms, who are paying $50/fillup.
Nope, Schaumburg.
Specifically, I work for the part that bought a VPN that only supports Windows clients, rather than the part of the company that bought a VPN with clients for many different OSs. D'oh!
Thanks for the tips - I'll take a look at Canvas. I've used FrameMaker for technical documents but never really thought of it as a DTP package. Perhaps I'll re-evaluate it on that basis.
I live in IL but use the toll roads maybe twice a year. As far as I'm concerned, they should be paid for entirely by usage taxes. I'd rather my taxes fund some sort of mass transit around the NW suburbs, for example.
Of course, you probably couldn't get the toll roads passed by the legislature in the first place with that platform, but I think it makes sense now. Tolls combine a usage tax with a gentle encouragement to use a more efficient means of transportation, like the train.
What expenditures does the EU have that require this tax income? You can say "proper taxes" all that you want, but if I am in the EU and buy software from the U.S., what services has the EU provided for me that they must be reimbursed for it with a tax? The U.S. government (read: U.S. taxpayers) has already paid (through supporting regulatory agencies, the courts, and the police) for the production of that good. The only costs to the EU for me to download that good from the US are the communications lines and the electricity, which I'm sure are already taxed in the EU.
So by letting the U.S. do all of the work, and collecting the taxes anyway, the EU is making a pure profit off of its member countries' citizens (or are you EU citizens now?). I don't agree that the government is entitled to a particular income, especially when it hasn't done any work to deserve it.
But a tax on purchases from the U.S. won't go back to the USDA, the U.S. FTC, or any other U.S. regulatory agency which can protect you from that sort of thing. You can bet once the EU gets their hands on the money, they aren't going to ship it back across the Atlantic.
Since there isn't an international regulatory body with authority at both ends of the transaction, there's nothing that the EU can do if you get cheated out of your software or music purchase on the web. The EU is just trying to add income which isn't matched by their expenditures (since presumably the U.S. is already watching for fraudulent merchants in the U.S.), and the result is pure profit for them.
Not that the U.S. wouldn't try to do the same thing, of course, and probably will. The situation with state taxes within the U.S. is a little better, since there are federal agencies that can regulate both ends of an interstate transaction. However, even in that case I would rather see the states raise taxes on those who use state resources (UPS/Fedex, and the merchant) rather than taxing purchasers from another state directly. The merchants and UPS/Fedex can just up their prices a little, and everybody can be happy without adding torturous (sp?) new tax laws.
The other day I had to insert the Windows 95 CD and reboot just to change my gateway address on my home network from 10.0.0.1 to 10.0.0.2. I have no idea why you would need the OS disk to change that information (let alone why you need to reboot). This is with Windows 95, upgraded from 3.1.
I wouldn't need to boot into Windows at all, except for:
Hmm... Just like Compuserve used gifs based on Unisys' technology, or mp3[*] is based on Fraunhofer's technology? I would be very careful to find out if the technology is encumbered by any current or pending patent claims before making it the standard. Whether or not the company says that it won't charge for the use of the technology, once enough people move to the new standard it starts looking real attractive to a corporation to go back on that agreement. Don't get fooled again.
[*] apparently Fraunhofer believes that their mp3 compression patent is broad enough that it is impossible to create mp3s (using any algorithm) without infringing on their patent.