why would software under "true open source" licenses like BSD be more immune to the legal problems of including stolen proprietary code than GPL'd code would?
Why would software under commercial licenses be more immune?
There are numerous examples of commercial software stealing from OSS, but examples of the other way around are very rare.
KDE can be configured to keep 2 seperate clipboards (and AFAIK it's configured by default that way) and when you use Ctrl+X/C/V, you will never need to know that there is another way to copy and paste.
but for the plug and play consumer this is exactly what they are going to want
Look, I am as paranoid as the average slashdotter, but the utter and horrible failure of ALL subscription-based consumer computer hardware makes it very obvious, that it just doesn't work.
The difference is that cars and homes are very expensive and all the overhead (of a monthly bill) isn't that big compared to the overall value. Also a lot of people just plainly cannot afford to pay for a house/car up front.
Computers, however are not *that* expensive. Also, if you want things to stay cheap, you just change parts and not the whole computer.
Upgrading a "component so deeply entrenched into the OS" (tm) is not that simple. Actually it might break stuff, it might be a hefty download over dialup, etc.
Fact is that to view webpage X, people would have the choice of downloading IE7 or downloading Mozilla (and webpage X is likely informing them about the Mozilla option), which is what Microsoft surely doesn't want.
But honestly if I'm running windows, what real motiviation is there to download a replacement browser when IE is already installed, and works?
I can't be mad at any secretary 'cause she uses IE instead of Mozilla/Netscape. Of course of political reasons she shouldn't, but practically?
Mozilla is using HTTP 1.1 pipelining which is faster for sites with lots of images, especially noticable over dialup
The only reason why Microsoft doesn't continue development is because they are happy with the status quo.
Continue developing Internet Explorer would be BAD for Microsoft
You know why?
Because any change is a threat to the status quo.
Because if IE7 can handle transparent PNGs and lots of sites start to use it, millions of IE6 users will upgrade. And when they upgrade there is the danger that they might upgrade to Mozilla and not IE7.
The same goes for CSS2/3, SVG, etc.
Developing IE is not in the interest of Microsoft, they would be stupid if they would do it at this time.
But there are a couple of reasons why IE will lose its domination in the next couple of years: Linux is making inroads, Mac-users are switching to Safari, Playstation3 will probably run Mozilla and cellphones run Opera.
Depending on whose numbers you are going to believe, Linux already holds about 30% to 50% of the market, strangely the Linux share is always higher in areas where the numbers are not guessed but counted like in webservers where Apache/Linux holds a comfortable majority.
Have you ever searched a webhoster in Germany that even offers Windows? Mine stopped to offer it last year. Windows is dying there, and losing more and more:
In a lot of countries, Windows on servers is already an exotic niche platform.
Webhosters don't want it anymore because the support costs aren't worth it and the added risk (a worm was the reason my webhoster stopped offering Windows) has to be paid somehow. Customers don't want it anymore because Apache gives them a much larger palette of availabe webhosters - thus more choice, lower costs and more competition among webhosters.
Windows just offers no real advantages to make up for all the license hassles.
Agree or disagree with the author, there is one thing he shows quite clearly: Many Linux users would rather attack than help.
This nice guy refused to disclose the hardware used for several days, so there was no way to help him at all and he was rightfully attacked for his FUD-article.
What I find most interesting is that Microsoft (+ servants) actually think that the general population likes IP-laws and they can destroy anybodys reputation by saying he speaks of IP rights "with open contempt".
The truth is that:
Almost everybody hates IP-rights
Almost everybody breaks IP-rights
Anybody who speaks with "open conempt" of IP rights will be a hero for almost everybody
Seems like Microsoft's anti-Linux FUD is a shot into their foot again...
Mod me however you like, but in my opinion the sooner people are driven away from Gnome and towards KDE, the better.
Lots of people want a standard desktop environment for Linux. One that is installed on (almost) every distro by default and one can be safely used as basis for projects.
Well, there's just a difference between "some evil hackers might possibly elevate some rights after investing weeks of time" and "you will get infected automatically after 15 minutes on the net" (I've seen it happen).
Yeah it's pretty obvious, but all the Microsoft-fundet TCO studies still don't contain a single dollar spent on Virus protection or cost if protection fails. In those studies it is just silently assumed that Windows is perfect and completely flawless.
Windows is a very capable OS. It has features that are designed to ease the many disparate tasks that different users will expect to handle. It is precisely because of this that Windows is unsuitable for a kiosk-like system. It is simply too powerful.
Too powerful?
The available apps FOR Windows are more numerous and very powerful, but Windows itself is hardly anything special. Winlots like you get excited about some basic OS-functionality like "starting applications" but that's hardly anything that makes Windows special or powerful.
IF the applications are available, Linux is perfectly usable on the desktop.
Yeah right, I still recall Linus Torvalds, Stallman and Alan Cox saying stuff like "Windows is a cancer", "Windows is unamerican" and "Windows destroys jobs".
Oh wait...
It's funny that the Winlots generally use "some anonymous posters" of course without any actual references to prove that the OSS-community is evil, but seem to purposely forget the things Microsoft TOP MANAGEMENT (and NOT some random nameless posters who don't count anyway) said.
Actually, despite the average poster's contrary views, Microsoft lost the so-called "browser war".
Netscape is destroyed, but Microsoft failed to destroy the Internet (and they did try to do exactly that with their at the time proprietary, incompatible MSN in the early 90's, which even got an icon in the default Windows 95 installation) and now they are scared because computers are connected with TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, FTP, etc. all invented (or "innovated") in the OSS community, all open, all free and most importantly, all available on non-MS platforms.
Even the most rabid winlots won't be able to claim with a straight face that a browser-only setup is cheaper with Windows. With more and more specialized and in-house software being developed web-based (mostly because of easier maintanance), Microsoft's lock on many desktops has weakened or even disappeared.
Why did the the UK Coastguard allow this to happen? The Sasser worm is 100% preventable if your system is properly patched and firewalled.
Yeah, if you live in your parent's basement and have nothing else to do, then yes. But believe it or not, the coast guard has actually something else to do than babysitting buggy Windows computers.
But of course all that doesn't exist in TCO-studies. In TCO-studies there are no worms, no holes, no patches, no needed antivirus software, no needed antivirus updates and no problems.
And that's why in theory, Windows-TCO is so low while in real life it's a lot higher than a comparable Linux solution (if it exists).
It's funny to see such anti-OSS nonsense being posted with HTTP (invented by the OSS community), transported by TCP/IP (invented by the OSS community) and displayed in HTML (invented by the OSS community).
When do you Winlots start to realize that there is a HUGE difference between remote and local exploits?
The former is likely to hit a lot of people through worms, the latter is (and I'll get flamed for saying that) mostly irrelevant unless you really need ultra-high security or have untrusted users on your machines (both cases are pretty rare in real life, sorry Winlots.)
And that's exacly why Linux' TCO is a lot lower than Window's. That's why webhosters usually charge about 30$ more for Windows than for Linux. (Every Windows machine is a much larger risk than a Linux machine.).
Also while in the Windows-world old bugs are constantly re-introduced into the network (because if you have some Win2K license you will use that when you reinstall) while in the Linux-world you usually use the newest version when you install a new machine. Actually Netcraft reported that after the CodeRed epidemy, the number of vulnerable machines was on the rise again!
To sum up (and to prevent somebody purposely misunderstanding), sure OSS isn't the silver bullet - but it indeed is much more secure than Microsoft. Also a halfway recent (let's say about 1-2 years old) unpatched Linux installation does not provide 100% security, but adequate (or "good enough") security for most users.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would software under commercial licenses be more immune?
There are numerous examples of commercial software stealing from OSS, but examples of the other way around are very rare.
KDE can be configured to keep 2 seperate clipboards (and AFAIK it's configured by default that way) and when you use Ctrl+X/C/V, you will never need to know that there is another way to copy and paste.
Look, I am as paranoid as the average slashdotter, but the utter and horrible failure of ALL subscription-based consumer computer hardware makes it very obvious, that it just doesn't work.
It's been tried before - many times.
Computers, however are not *that* expensive. Also, if you want things to stay cheap, you just change parts and not the whole computer.
Fact is that to view webpage X, people would have the choice of downloading IE7 or downloading Mozilla (and webpage X is likely informing them about the Mozilla option), which is what Microsoft surely doesn't want.
Continue developing Internet Explorer would be BAD for Microsoft
You know why?
Because any change is a threat to the status quo.
Because if IE7 can handle transparent PNGs and lots of sites start to use it, millions of IE6 users will upgrade. And when they upgrade there is the danger that they might upgrade to Mozilla and not IE7.
The same goes for CSS2/3, SVG, etc.
Developing IE is not in the interest of Microsoft, they would be stupid if they would do it at this time.
But there are a couple of reasons why IE will lose its domination in the next couple of years: Linux is making inroads, Mac-users are switching to Safari, Playstation3 will probably run Mozilla and cellphones run Opera.
Depending on whose numbers you are going to believe, Linux already holds about 30% to 50% of the market, strangely the Linux share is always higher in areas where the numbers are not guessed but counted like in webservers where Apache/Linux holds a comfortable majority.
Have you ever searched a webhoster in Germany that even offers Windows? Mine stopped to offer it last year. Windows is dying there, and losing more and more:
look here
In Japan, the same picture:
stats
In a lot of countries, Windows on servers is already an exotic niche platform.
Webhosters don't want it anymore because the support costs aren't worth it and the added risk (a worm was the reason my webhoster stopped offering Windows) has to be paid somehow. Customers don't want it anymore because Apache gives them a much larger palette of availabe webhosters - thus more choice, lower costs and more competition among webhosters.
Windows just offers no real advantages to make up for all the license hassles.
What's a quart?
This nice guy refused to disclose the hardware used for several days, so there was no way to help him at all and he was rightfully attacked for his FUD-article.
1) Switch on computer
2) Login
3) Wait until everything is loaded and the disk stops chunking
4) Plug in network
Is that really hard?
The OP was talking about hundreds of machines. What do you suggest, pull the plug for the whole organization?
Yeah, that's really the new height of user-friendlyness...
The truth is that:
Seems like Microsoft's anti-Linux FUD is a shot into their foot again...
What features does GNOME have that KDE doesn't?
Lots of people want a standard desktop environment for Linux. One that is installed on (almost) every distro by default and one can be safely used as basis for projects.
Did you get the hardware from a lottery or did you find it in the street?
What about such things as space? What about power?
Well, there's just a difference between "some evil hackers might possibly elevate some rights after investing weeks of time" and "you will get infected automatically after 15 minutes on the net" (I've seen it happen).
Yeah it's pretty obvious, but all the Microsoft-fundet TCO studies still don't contain a single dollar spent on Virus protection or cost if protection fails. In those studies it is just silently assumed that Windows is perfect and completely flawless.
Too powerful?
The available apps FOR Windows are more numerous and very powerful, but Windows itself is hardly anything special. Winlots like you get excited about some basic OS-functionality like "starting applications" but that's hardly anything that makes Windows special or powerful.
IF the applications are available, Linux is perfectly usable on the desktop.
Oh wait...
It's funny that the Winlots generally use "some anonymous posters" of course without any actual references to prove that the OSS-community is evil, but seem to purposely forget the things Microsoft TOP MANAGEMENT (and NOT some random nameless posters who don't count anyway) said.
Exactly.
Actually, despite the average poster's contrary views, Microsoft lost the so-called "browser war".
Netscape is destroyed, but Microsoft failed to destroy the Internet (and they did try to do exactly that with their at the time proprietary, incompatible MSN in the early 90's, which even got an icon in the default Windows 95 installation) and now they are scared because computers are connected with TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, FTP, etc. all invented (or "innovated") in the OSS community, all open, all free and most importantly, all available on non-MS platforms.
Even the most rabid winlots won't be able to claim with a straight face that a browser-only setup is cheaper with Windows. With more and more specialized and in-house software being developed web-based (mostly because of easier maintanance), Microsoft's lock on many desktops has weakened or even disappeared.
Yeah, if you live in your parent's basement and have nothing else to do, then yes. But believe it or not, the coast guard has actually something else to do than babysitting buggy Windows computers.
But of course all that doesn't exist in TCO-studies. In TCO-studies there are no worms, no holes, no patches, no needed antivirus software, no needed antivirus updates and no problems.
And that's why in theory, Windows-TCO is so low while in real life it's a lot higher than a comparable Linux solution (if it exists).
I think you don't understand the problem.
People giving away passwords are not a problem except for themselves.
Windows is a problem for everybody because a worm can exploit millions of machines automatically.
The former is likely to hit a lot of people through worms, the latter is (and I'll get flamed for saying that) mostly irrelevant unless you really need ultra-high security or have untrusted users on your machines (both cases are pretty rare in real life, sorry Winlots.)
And that's exacly why Linux' TCO is a lot lower than Window's. That's why webhosters usually charge about 30$ more for Windows than for Linux. (Every Windows machine is a much larger risk than a Linux machine.).
Also while in the Windows-world old bugs are constantly re-introduced into the network (because if you have some Win2K license you will use that when you reinstall) while in the Linux-world you usually use the newest version when you install a new machine. Actually Netcraft reported that after the CodeRed epidemy, the number of vulnerable machines was on the rise again!
To sum up (and to prevent somebody purposely misunderstanding), sure OSS isn't the silver bullet - but it indeed is much more secure than Microsoft. Also a halfway recent (let's say about 1-2 years old) unpatched Linux installation does not provide 100% security, but adequate (or "good enough") security for most users.