1. Bill's out of his gourd if he thinks telling the Europeans that OSS is anti-capitalist will get him anywhere. If anything it'll ensure the Europeans go more into the OSS camp.
Can't argue with that one. Guaranteed to piss off every Euro-type - an American with a "You socialists don't know jack shit" attitude.
2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization?
Harmonization of labelling, consumer protection, etc is kind of necessary in a single market. Centralization? Show me one example of a governmental organization which doesn't see centralization as the route to Nirvana.
Actually, compared with the British government (the permanent government - not the elected clowns who get to occasionally sneak one past the civil service), the EU can look like a devolutionists dream sometimes...
I can control what software runs on my machine right now, and I can refuse to run incoming code that isn't signed by a trusted party.
Can you, though? Can you ensure that the OS which runs the applications hasn't been tampered with since the machine has booted? If there is a flaw in the capability or module loading code of the OS, all the digital signing in the world won't help you - you need to continuously (or at least randomly) verify the contents of the in-memory image. And that's what TCPA does.
There is nothing which would prevent Linux from running on such systems - unless the hardware manufacturer actually prevented you from changing the keys in the trusted component (ie, something you could normally only do from a secure console, or BIOS configuration screen).And, of course, if they did that, you could never update the initial OS - you'd be stuck with all the bugs forever!
I'm not saying it can't be used for obnoxious purposes - knowing the media companies and M$'s past behaviour, the attempt is almost certain to occur. A far more dangerous threat is to documents - it would be possible for M$ to ensure that only Word (and not StarOffice) could read Word documents - even if they published the format of the document openly. Of course, the great gamble with that approach is that people would end up saying "Fuck it, let's move to StarOffice".
But, as we're fond of pointing out with regard to the DeCSS affair - because a technology could be used for ill purpose doesn't mean that it can only be used for such purposes. We should attack the abuses of technology by our market and legal rights - not try and stop the neutral technology itself.
I think that the Trusted Computing Platform is probably the one thing which could make computing a truly secure activity. I'm not saying that it will - just that it could. Because fundamentally - if your verification code is executed in-band with the thing it's trying to verify (ie, within the same computing base), you can never have complete confidence in the verification.
And if you're so self-sufficient when it comes to defense, how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back, eh?
Err...you got it back, in 1945. You got 99 year leases on our various overseas bases, or you got the ships back undamaged (well, a bit pock marked, maybe...), and you got about $11 billion - from us.
By the time the base leases come up for renewal (in about 40 years time), you should have got more value than the remaining $20 billion. We'll call it quits, though, since you did supply 50 obsolete submarines to soak up German torpedoes:-)
I'm voting UKIP as it's made up of some uber-capitalists and is the closest to a Libertarian party in the UK.
Well, if you do that, I suppose that you'll be guranteed that the party you vote for will never bring forward such outrageous legislation - because they'll never be in government.
Maybe we should do away with governing parties - we should all just have competing oppositions. That way no obnoxious legislation will ever be enacted - or any legislation that we do like either:-)
The RIP act should be over turned completly, not expanded in any way shape or form.
Nah, not completely - the cops do need some surveillance powers - it's just that they should be backed up by judicial warrant when they intrude into people's private lives. That said, I've read RIPA about three times - and I still don't know what it really gives authority to do. So I pity the poor copper that risks an investigation and his career on his interpretation of that pile of garbage.
Of course the really scary bill was the one which came before it (at the tail end of the last Tory government - the electronic communications bill). Effectively the banning of unlicensed crypto, and mandatory key escrow. Once business and civil liberties folks got torn into it, the DTI gutted the nasty bits from it and left it to the Home Office to face the flak.
On the other hand, I think that Blunkett deserves a bit of credit for saying that you can't just crap over people's basic rights - even if you could railroad this through Parliament. Some things are important.
As I said in an earlier post - party political rants aren't useful here - it's not the Labour party or Conservatives, or Lib Dems that are the driving force - it's the civil servants, seeking to boost their departmental budgets by having more people with more powers. And I've never known a politician yet who has managed to avoid the lure of all these little secrets that the spooks can let them into ( if only you'd let us do this more, Minister, we could be really good for you. )
For those who wrote to your MPs - keep doing it! The politicos hate controversy when there are no votes in it. This proposal will resurface, and we need to let them know that it'll stink worse as a zombie than it did while alive.
The parallels which can be drawn against Blair vs Hitler and Blair vs Saddam are astounding.... Compare many of Blair's election speeches to translations of Hitler's. Compare his delivery style to that of Hitler's. Compare his appointment styles with that of Saddam.
I can rant all day and night.
Yes, you could - but it would still be a bunch of paranoid right-wing shite. So thank you for curtailing your flamebait where you did.
Lest anyone get confused - this has got fuck all to do with the elected gorvernment of the UK. By and large such measures are proposed and driven by the civil service bureaucracy. More civil servants to snoop == bigger budgets == more status in the Whitehall machinery.
If we had a Conservative government we would have the same proposals. If we had a Lib Dem one, we'd get the same. Try and get this through your (collective) heads - 90% of all government policies would be done in any case.
Oh, and atcurtis - there's a general rule in netiquette about bringing in "Hitler and the Nazis" - don't do it. Repeating suburban myths plucked from the xenopobic little hate sheets like the Daily Mail or Telegraph is not a good substiture for critical thinking.
Anyway - write to your MP. It's not much, but governments will occasionally back down when legislation looks "controversial" In other words, there are no votes to be gained by this spook sponsored stuff, but there are plenty to be lost by civil libertarians who voted for Labour last time. Raise enough of a stink, and suddenly this bill will run out of parliamentary time, or some new, more "important", legislation will take its place.
But don't sit on your arse and complain to slashdot. It's got bugger all electoral power in the UK.
Do they need to? Consider what happens when the US congress passes a blatently unconstitutional law?
Then it is subject to challenge in the courts. So, unless you define that the courts are an arm of government, then it is not self-regulatory. (It's a fair debating point - is the government the executive, or the executive, legislative and judicial arms of state combined?).
And, as we all seem to agree - if the courts won't do their jobs, then the Constitution ceases to be valid as an instrument of state.
Communications is NOT a right, my socialist friend.
How does proposing a not-for-profit infrastructure become socialist?
It may not be a right (ie, human or civil), but it certainly is a necessity for high-tech societies nowadays. Probably fair to say that denial (or at least curtailment) of communications capability severely restricts your ability to join in today's market economy.
Neither the US nor most of Europe runs its roads network as a for-profit infrastructure - why are high tech comms so different? The UK tried to run its railways as a for-profit infrastructure before realising that the market wouldn't bear it (we ended up having to pour billions of subsidy from a public monopoly to a private one - and it was a conservative administration which made the switch).
Second. There are two things that make Governmnet corruption very dangerous. 1. They are an entity that is designed to do nothing but watch out for us. When they start watching out for each other, or a corporation, then people get harmed.
I'm not sure this really works any more as a definition of the proper role of government (ie, do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves). It seems that so many governments also include "safeguarding the economic interests of the state" as part of their remit. In other words, economic interest (corporations) are deemed to be strategically important - like territory.
2. They have more power than any company on earth. Microsoft will not carpet bomb your neighborhood just because you didn't read your license agreement. The Government, however, can ammend the constitution, make laws, repeal laws, use force, and CAN essentially do what they please.
Well - hold on there! The US Government cannot summarily alter the Constitution - the government is defined and limited by that Constitution. You still have to get qualified majority legislative approval, as well as approval from a qualified majority of states (2/3rds IIRC).
However, if the courts and people are prepared to turn a blind eye to abuses, then the Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper.
My take on the article is that RMS is seeing this as Restricting Freedom. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps not. I personally feel he's a loony extremist, who sees the world as Pure Freedom or Total Slavery.
Well, having met him a couple of times, I'd say that he's an idealist and difficult to see eye to eye with. But a loony extremist? No - he's way too sussed for that. He's just someone who's been in the business for so long, he's seen way too many people got screwed over on this altar of intellectual property.
However, without more information, I can't tell if the "Per Seat" license covers the 'United Linux' material only, or which. United Linux -needs- to make money. And if a "$50 per seat" license is how they get it, who am I to say its a bad idea. This does not affect me, I don't run any derivative of Linux. (I'm one of those naughty BSD people. boo. hiss.)
Not naughty at all - there's room for everyone. From what I read about United Linux, there won't be a UL "distribution" - it's more like a compliance statement. That is, write an app and it gets certified for any UL compliant distro. So the per-seat stuff will continue to apply to Caldera, but not necessarily to SuSE, or TurboLinux, or whatever.
I've got to say that I too think the per-seat crap is doomed to die. It's exactly what so many IT departments buy into M$'s pool-based licensing system to avoid! They have to employ more expensive people just to chase down the licenses. Screw that.
Personally, I think the whole UL thing is a good idea - but I still see Red Hat dominant a year or two from now (if they can stay in business:-) )
I can't argue with you here - since you're right. Linux can be made too hard to use efficiently.
However, returning to the topic of business use (desktop and server), I'd say that the issues you raise are not of the first order of importance.
Switching resolutions? Nearly all Office/Windows users have a single resolution. Remember, apart from the geeky or gaming types, most office machines end up in pretty much the same state they were installed.
Let's face it, most IT departments are busy trying to stop people installing software, playing games, etc, since it drives their support costs up. (ie getting the platform back to a known good state, etc).
But for the home user, I'd still say that the Ximian Desktop is pretty easy to use. Install software? Red Carpet. Run office? Use the menu or OpenOffice quick start. Change the volume - ideally use the volume control keys, but failing that the volume applet.
But it's still flailing a bit. It's not as integrated as Windows. Nearly, and in many cases, good enough for most people - but not yet. Printer admin is still a nightmare, and CUPS or LPRng isn't well integrated into the user world yet.
Wireless networking is truly a pain - but it's getting better - day by day.
I have great faith in the Linux desktop, and the server world and the combination of both - which many businesses are starting to realise exists. But as you say - might take a little while.
Ahh, I just assumed that they did--I know that the US's system of Common Law was taken from the Brits, and since nearly all civil trials in the US have juries, I figured that nearly all civil trials in the Commonwealth did too.
I seem to remember that Australian law is largely based on Scots law (different from English). I do know that universities in Scotland give Aussie cases to law students as relevant examples.
I see your point - but bandwidth still isn't free. You still have to pay connection charges as well as ISP charges.
And those charges are (at least in part) set by the overall level of data transferred. Now, individually, it's true - you've already paid for it. But collectively, the more useless traffic on the networks, the more that we'll be required to pay individually.
I need stuff that helps me work faster, better and *simpler*. That is what Windows *does* have in its favor currently. Most things are just a few dialog boxes away and I'm done. I'm waiting for that in Linux and I hope with a decree that they are going after business that they will realize that business isn't interested in the arcane. They want simple, fast solutions to common tasks.
But dialog boxes != simple, fast solutions. Note - you didn't say that they were, but all too often this is taken as mantra. Sometimes, GUIs are the right thing to use. Sometimes, CLIs and editing of config files are the right things to do. Very often, GUIs which edit config files in the background enable you to split off level 1 tech support from deeper tech support.
What is true is that businesses generally want repeatable infrastructures. This often (but not always) requires a good degree of automation within business processes. I would maintain that both Windows and Linux have a ways to go on this front, but I'd place more money on Linux getting there, since the view of a stripped down internet appliance is (IMHO) easier to make under Linux.
The arcane is not the desirable, but computing systems are complex, multi-faceted entities. And abstracting away complexity by degrading how good a fit the systems are for your business is not a good strategy. Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
A bit incoherent, this post, but it's my overtired rant against the belief that pointy-clicky interfaces are by definition better for businesses. Everyone needs to be trained how to use business equipment properly - whether its a fork lift or a computer.
SOME Americans would appreciate the same courtesy. The vast majority don't give a rat's ass what Europe thinks.
HOWEVER, the easiest way to get us to quit judging you based on the actions of a tiny minority is to extend us the same courtesy.
Well, in the hope that I'm talking to one of the minority who does care what others think of you - it's not much of an incentive to reduce our level of prejudice, if we know in advance that it won't make a bit of difference to the vast majority, because that majority has already decided to exercise their prejudice in order to discard our new-found concern.
It's been my experience in my many travels to the USA that the majority of its citizens most certainly do care how they are perceived abroad - by Europeans, Asians, etc. Their level of information could be better, but I've yet to find any people of whom that couldn't be said.
Is it possible you were judging your own people by the actions of a few who make the headlines?:-)
It's a kid's movie, why shouldn't they make a 1-second cut that will allow kids to see it?
Exactly my point - I don't have a problem with it. Trouble is too many/. libertarians will launch into polemic screaming about the traducement of free speech
You know the sort of tired nonsense spouted by weedy types who don't get laid much - pinko Europeans, silly socialists, nanny state, censors, Hitler & the Nazis, yawn...
My point is that the Classification Board offer a choice - cut the film and keep the money, or refuse the cut and keep the film as Lucas intended. As a parent, I don't think losing a 1 second headbutt from a film will do that much damage to the film's value - so I'll be taking my 10 year old along to see it, even in this hideously bastardized form which the patriarchal elite have seen fit to butcher atavistically.
I guess they figure that young kids are not that likely to lop somebody in two with a light sabre, but they're pretty likely to stick the nut into some little kiddy's face.
I don't really have a problem with the BBFC's decision. The film makers are perfectly entitled to say "Fuck you, the headbutt stays". It's just that they have to accept a 12 certificate. Which means lower revenue (gee, a whole $20m less that $5b) in the UK.
Now we get to see whether artistic integrity will triumph over filthy lucre...
Well, in the immortal words of a man slung over John Cleese's shoulders -
"I'm not dead yet"
"I'm getting better"
"I think I might go for a walk"
Of course, then Eric Idle bludgeons him to death, but you never know - HP might just survive. And if it doesn't, it won't be for lack of effort from its workforce (and no, I'm not Carly)
Unfortunately, both parent posts carry the unfortunate tone of right-wing political correctness. The tarring of advocates of free software as hippies (and seeking to associate them with the usual "hippie" attributes of unworldliness or immorality), is an example of the "everybody knows" argument - sounds good in polemic, but from an informational point of view is pretty useless - mainly because the information that "everybody knows" is actually a poorly distilled version of out-of-context snippets from the most vocal and least thoughtful proponents of a point of view.
Are you willing to explore what this twisted version of "free" is, which you claim that others purport? Are you also willing to explain your use of what seems like an arbitrary appeal to authority (ie, Plato's Laws), and why it lends support to your argument?
There is no issue for the British courts to decide. The British patent expired some years ago. The American patent isn't due to expire until 2006, hence BT's intention to relieve its debt level by suing someone over this shining turd of a case.
The current case is BT versus Prodigy, which will be played out in the US courts.
God help us, I actually remember Prestel - to think that that POS would rise up zombie like to threaten the Web...
I couldn't give two flying shits for those with no ambition or self-motivation.
That's not what he said. He referred to those having very high ambition. Like so many other things, ambition and motivation are aspects of a personality which have to be traded against other aspects of life.
I have a family whose welfare must be set against my own need for self advancement. So do you (judging by your website). Do fend for yourself alone, or are they part of the equation.?Of course, they are.
Fend for themselves is fine when you're ahead of the pack. But that devil take the hindmost approach has a habit of biting you in the ass.
Society does exist - and not just as a collection of individuals and families
If you lose $50K and haven't kept backups, then you're surely guilty of contributory negligence. If you had insurance for loss of business owning to buggy code, they wouldn't pay out... and rightly so.
It seems to me that the problem is that software flakiness (and unavailability of the means of redress) makes placing boundaries around likelihood of loss extremely difficult. Effectively software use is uninsurable.
(Yes, I do know that you can get loss of business insurance via software unavailability, but the terms of such policies are ruinous).
In other words, you have the (legal) right to view the content, but not the power to do so
The granting of rights without the power to exercise them is the starting point for cheating the people out of everything that they might have thought they struggled for
From a historical point of view, the DMCA is not the worst act to flow from a supine Congress too concerned with grovelling to corporate paymasters, but it certainly looks like one of the worst stinkers in current democratic polities.
Not - I hasten to add - that I believe that the European powers will be long in kow-towing to the media corporates (mentioning no Murdochs).
Leaving aside your comments, was the
offensive sig really necessary? It
really can only undermine your point
(which wasn't badly put)
You and I know damn well that FTP after
a 1690 reference has got bugger all to do
with File Transport Protocol.
As for the market always being right, can
you define further this statement? Right for whom,
by what criteria, and right in which ways
(morally, socially, numerically). Depending upon
your answer, I might be able to come up with
counterexamples.
Unless you're a believer in Ayn Rand's Objectivist
nonsense, in which case I won't bother wasting
bandwidth
BTW, I think you might find many libertarians
who would object to your statement that Libertarianism
is about letting "companies like MS do what they want".
Slashdot Mirror
1. Bill's out of his gourd if he thinks telling the Europeans that OSS is anti-capitalist will get him anywhere. If anything it'll ensure the Europeans go more into the OSS camp.
Can't argue with that one. Guaranteed to piss off every Euro-type - an American with a "You socialists don't know jack shit" attitude.
2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization?
Harmonization of labelling, consumer protection, etc is kind of necessary in a single market. Centralization? Show me one example of a governmental organization which doesn't see centralization as the route to Nirvana.
Actually, compared with the British government (the permanent government - not the elected clowns who get to occasionally sneak one past the civil service), the EU can look like a devolutionists dream sometimes...
--Ng
I can control what software runs on my machine right now, and I can refuse to run incoming code that isn't signed by a trusted party.
Can you, though? Can you ensure that the OS which runs the applications hasn't been tampered with since the machine has booted? If there is a flaw in the capability or module loading code of the OS, all the digital signing in the world won't help you - you need to continuously (or at least randomly) verify the contents of the in-memory image. And that's what TCPA does.
There is nothing which would prevent Linux from running on such systems - unless the hardware manufacturer actually prevented you from changing the keys in the trusted component (ie, something you could normally only do from a secure console, or BIOS configuration screen).And, of course, if they did that, you could never update the initial OS - you'd be stuck with all the bugs forever!
I'm not saying it can't be used for obnoxious purposes - knowing the media companies and M$'s past behaviour, the attempt is almost certain to occur. A far more dangerous threat is to documents - it would be possible for M$ to ensure that only Word (and not StarOffice) could read Word documents - even if they published the format of the document openly. Of course, the great gamble with that approach is that people would end up saying "Fuck it, let's move to StarOffice".
But, as we're fond of pointing out with regard to the DeCSS affair - because a technology could be used for ill purpose doesn't mean that it can only be used for such purposes. We should attack the abuses of technology by our market and legal rights - not try and stop the neutral technology itself.
I think that the Trusted Computing Platform is probably the one thing which could make computing a truly secure activity. I'm not saying that it will - just that it could. Because fundamentally - if your verification code is executed in-band with the thing it's trying to verify (ie, within the same computing base), you can never have complete confidence in the verification.
--Ng
And if you're so self-sufficient when it comes to defense, how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back, eh?
:-)
Err...you got it back, in 1945. You got 99 year leases on our various overseas bases, or you got the ships back undamaged (well, a bit pock marked, maybe...), and you got about $11 billion - from us.
By the time the base leases come up for renewal (in about 40 years time), you should have got more value than the remaining $20 billion. We'll call it quits, though, since you did supply 50 obsolete submarines to soak up German torpedoes
--Ng
We need politicians who are aware enough of the issues not to wastetheir time with pointless snooping laws like this in the first place.
If you ever find one, will you tell us?
--Ng
I'm voting UKIP as it's made up of some uber-capitalists and is the closest to a Libertarian party in the UK.
:-)
Well, if you do that, I suppose that you'll be guranteed that the party you vote for will never bring forward such outrageous legislation - because they'll never be in government.
Maybe we should do away with governing parties - we should all just have competing oppositions. That way no obnoxious legislation will ever be enacted - or any legislation that we do like either
--Ng
The RIP act should be over turned completly, not expanded in any way shape or form.
Nah, not completely - the cops do need some surveillance powers - it's just that they should be backed up by judicial warrant when they intrude into people's private lives. That said, I've read RIPA about three times - and I still don't know what it really gives authority to do. So I pity the poor copper that risks an investigation and his career on his interpretation of that pile of garbage.
Of course the really scary bill was the one which came before it (at the tail end of the last Tory government - the electronic communications bill). Effectively the banning of unlicensed crypto, and mandatory key escrow. Once business and civil liberties folks got torn into it, the DTI gutted the nasty bits from it and left it to the Home Office to face the flak.
On the other hand, I think that Blunkett deserves a bit of credit for saying that you can't just crap over people's basic rights - even if you could railroad this through Parliament. Some things are important.
As I said in an earlier post - party political rants aren't useful here - it's not the Labour party or Conservatives, or Lib Dems that are the driving force - it's the civil servants, seeking to boost their departmental budgets by having more people with more powers. And I've never known a politician yet who has managed to avoid the lure of all these little secrets that the spooks can let them into ( if only you'd let us do this more, Minister, we could be really good for you. )
For those who wrote to your MPs - keep doing it! The politicos hate controversy when there are no votes in it. This proposal will resurface, and we need to let them know that it'll stink worse as a zombie than it did while alive.
--Ng
The parallels which can be drawn against Blair vs Hitler and Blair vs Saddam are astounding.... Compare many of Blair's election speeches to translations of Hitler's. Compare his delivery style to that of Hitler's. Compare his appointment styles with that of Saddam.
I can rant all day and night.
Yes, you could - but it would still be a bunch of paranoid right-wing shite. So thank you for curtailing your flamebait where you did.
Lest anyone get confused - this has got fuck all to do with the elected gorvernment of the UK. By and large such measures are proposed and driven by the civil service bureaucracy. More civil servants to snoop == bigger budgets == more status in the Whitehall machinery.
If we had a Conservative government we would have the same proposals. If we had a Lib Dem one, we'd get the same. Try and get this through your (collective) heads - 90% of all government policies would be done in any case.
Oh, and atcurtis - there's a general rule in netiquette about bringing in "Hitler and the Nazis" - don't do it. Repeating suburban myths plucked from the xenopobic little hate sheets like the Daily Mail or Telegraph is not a good substiture for critical thinking.
Anyway - write to your MP. It's not much, but governments will occasionally back down when legislation looks "controversial" In other words, there are no votes to be gained by this spook sponsored stuff, but there are plenty to be lost by civil libertarians who voted for Labour last time. Raise enough of a stink, and suddenly this bill will run out of parliamentary time, or some new, more "important", legislation will take its place.
But don't sit on your arse and complain to slashdot. It's got bugger all electoral power in the UK.
--Ng
Do they need to? Consider what happens when the US congress passes a blatently unconstitutional law?
Then it is subject to challenge in the courts. So, unless you define that the courts are an arm of government, then it is not self-regulatory. (It's a fair debating point - is the government the executive, or the executive, legislative and judicial arms of state combined?).
And, as we all seem to agree - if the courts won't do their jobs, then the Constitution ceases to be valid as an instrument of state.
--Ng
Communications is NOT a right, my socialist friend.
How does proposing a not-for-profit infrastructure become socialist?
It may not be a right (ie, human or civil), but it certainly is a necessity for high-tech societies nowadays. Probably fair to say that denial (or at least curtailment) of communications capability severely restricts your ability to join in today's market economy.
Neither the US nor most of Europe runs its roads network as a for-profit infrastructure - why are high tech comms so different? The UK tried to run its railways as a for-profit infrastructure before realising that the market wouldn't bear it (we ended up having to pour billions of subsidy from a public monopoly to a private one - and it was a conservative administration which made the switch).
Just a thought.
--Ng
Second. There are two things that make Governmnet corruption very dangerous. 1. They are an entity that is designed to do nothing but watch out for us. When they start watching out for each other, or a corporation, then people get harmed.
I'm not sure this really works any more as a definition of the proper role of government (ie, do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves). It seems that so many governments also include "safeguarding the economic interests of the state" as part of their remit. In other words, economic interest (corporations) are deemed to be strategically important - like territory.
2. They have more power than any company on earth. Microsoft will not carpet bomb your neighborhood just because you didn't read your license agreement. The Government, however, can ammend the constitution, make laws, repeal laws, use force, and CAN essentially do what they please.
Well - hold on there! The US Government cannot summarily alter the Constitution - the government is defined and limited by that Constitution. You still have to get qualified majority legislative approval, as well as approval from a qualified majority of states (2/3rds IIRC).
However, if the courts and people are prepared to turn a blind eye to abuses, then the Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper.
--Ng
My take on the article is that RMS is seeing this as Restricting Freedom. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps not. I personally feel he's a loony extremist, who sees the world as Pure Freedom or Total Slavery.
:-) )
Well, having met him a couple of times, I'd say that he's an idealist and difficult to see eye to eye with. But a loony extremist? No - he's way too sussed for that. He's just someone who's been in the business for so long, he's seen way too many people got screwed over on this altar of intellectual property.
However, without more information, I can't tell if the "Per Seat" license covers the 'United Linux' material only, or which. United Linux -needs- to make money. And if a "$50 per seat" license is how they get it, who am I to say its a bad idea. This does not affect me, I don't run any derivative of Linux. (I'm one of those naughty BSD people. boo. hiss.)
Not naughty at all - there's room for everyone. From what I read about United Linux, there won't be a UL "distribution" - it's more like a compliance statement. That is, write an app and it gets certified for any UL compliant distro. So the per-seat stuff will continue to apply to Caldera, but not necessarily to SuSE, or TurboLinux, or whatever.
I've got to say that I too think the per-seat crap is doomed to die. It's exactly what so many IT departments buy into M$'s pool-based licensing system to avoid! They have to employ more expensive people just to chase down the licenses. Screw that.
Personally, I think the whole UL thing is a good idea - but I still see Red Hat dominant a year or two from now (if they can stay in business
--Ng
I can't argue with you here - since you're right. Linux can be made too hard to use efficiently.
However, returning to the topic of business use (desktop and server), I'd say that the issues you raise are not of the first order of importance.
Switching resolutions? Nearly all Office/Windows users have a single resolution. Remember, apart from the geeky or gaming types, most office machines end up in pretty much the same state they were installed.
Let's face it, most IT departments are busy trying to stop people installing software, playing games, etc, since it drives their support costs up. (ie getting the platform back to a known good state, etc).
But for the home user, I'd still say that the Ximian Desktop is pretty easy to use. Install software? Red Carpet. Run office? Use the menu or OpenOffice quick start. Change the volume - ideally use the volume control keys, but failing that the volume applet.
But it's still flailing a bit. It's not as integrated as Windows. Nearly, and in many cases, good enough for most people - but not yet. Printer admin is still a nightmare, and CUPS or LPRng isn't well integrated into the user world yet.
Wireless networking is truly a pain - but it's getting better - day by day.
I have great faith in the Linux desktop, and the server world and the combination of both - which many businesses are starting to realise exists. But as you say - might take a little while.
--Ng
Ahh, I just assumed that they did--I know that the US's system of Common Law was taken from the Brits, and since nearly all civil trials in the US have juries, I figured that nearly all civil trials in the Commonwealth did too.
I seem to remember that Australian law is largely based on Scots law (different from English). I do know that universities in Scotland give Aussie cases to law students as relevant examples.
--Ng
I see your point - but bandwidth still isn't free. You still have to pay connection charges as well as ISP charges.
And those charges are (at least in part) set by the overall level of data transferred. Now, individually, it's true - you've already paid for it. But collectively, the more useless traffic on the networks, the more that we'll be required to pay individually.
--Ng
I need stuff that helps me work faster, better and *simpler*. That is what Windows *does* have in its favor currently. Most things are just a few dialog boxes away and I'm done. I'm waiting for that in Linux and I hope with a decree that they are going after business that they will realize that business isn't interested in the arcane. They want simple, fast solutions to common tasks.
But dialog boxes != simple, fast solutions. Note - you didn't say that they were, but all too often this is taken as mantra. Sometimes, GUIs are the right thing to use. Sometimes, CLIs and editing of config files are the right things to do. Very often, GUIs which edit config files in the background enable you to split off level 1 tech support from deeper tech support.
What is true is that businesses generally want repeatable infrastructures. This often (but not always) requires a good degree of automation within business processes. I would maintain that both Windows and Linux have a ways to go on this front, but I'd place more money on Linux getting there, since the view of a stripped down internet appliance is (IMHO) easier to make under Linux.
The arcane is not the desirable, but computing systems are complex, multi-faceted entities. And abstracting away complexity by degrading how good a fit the systems are for your business is not a good strategy. Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
A bit incoherent, this post, but it's my overtired rant against the belief that pointy-clicky interfaces are by definition better for businesses. Everyone needs to be trained how to use business equipment properly - whether its a fork lift or a computer.
--Ng
SOME Americans would appreciate the same courtesy. The vast majority don't give a rat's ass what Europe thinks.
HOWEVER, the easiest way to get us to quit judging you based on the actions of a tiny minority is to extend us the same courtesy.
Well, in the hope that I'm talking to one of the minority who does care what others think of you - it's not much of an incentive to reduce our level of prejudice, if we know in advance that it won't make a bit of difference to the vast majority, because that majority has already decided to exercise their prejudice in order to discard our new-found concern.
It's been my experience in my many travels to the USA that the majority of its citizens most certainly do care how they are perceived abroad - by Europeans, Asians, etc. Their level of information could be better, but I've yet to find any people of whom that couldn't be said.
Is it possible you were judging your own people by the actions of a few who make the headlines? :-)
--Ng
It's a kid's movie, why shouldn't they make a 1-second cut that will allow kids to see it?
Exactly my point - I don't have a problem with it. Trouble is too manyYou know the sort of tired nonsense spouted by weedy types who don't get laid much - pinko Europeans, silly socialists, nanny state, censors, Hitler & the Nazis, yawn...
My point is that the Classification Board offer a choice - cut the film and keep the money, or refuse the cut and keep the film as Lucas intended. As a parent, I don't think losing a 1 second headbutt from a film will do that much damage to the film's value - so I'll be taking my 10 year old along to see it, even in this hideously bastardized form which the patriarchal elite have seen fit to butcher atavistically.
--Ng
I guess they figure that young kids are not that likely to lop somebody in two with a light sabre, but they're pretty likely to stick the nut into some little kiddy's face.
I don't really have a problem with the BBFC's decision. The film makers are perfectly entitled to say "Fuck you, the headbutt stays". It's just that they have to accept a 12 certificate. Which means lower revenue (gee, a whole $20m less that $5b) in the UK.
Now we get to see whether artistic integrity will triumph over filthy lucre...
--Ng
Well, in the immortal words of a man slung over John Cleese's shoulders -
"I'm not dead yet"
"I'm getting better"
"I think I might go for a walk"
Of course, then Eric Idle bludgeons him to death, but you never know - HP might just survive. And if it doesn't, it won't be for lack of effort from its workforce (and no, I'm not Carly)
--Ng
Unfortunately, both parent posts carry the unfortunate tone of right-wing political correctness. The tarring of advocates of free software as hippies (and seeking to associate them with the usual "hippie" attributes of unworldliness or immorality), is an example of the "everybody knows" argument - sounds good in polemic, but from an informational point of view is pretty useless - mainly because the information that "everybody knows" is actually a poorly distilled version of out-of-context snippets from the most vocal and least thoughtful proponents of a point of view.
Are you willing to explore what this twisted version of "free" is, which you claim that others purport? Are you also willing to explain your use of what seems like an arbitrary appeal to authority (ie, Plato's Laws), and why it lends support to your argument?
--Ng
There is no issue for the British courts to decide. The British patent expired some years ago. The American patent isn't due to expire until 2006, hence BT's intention to relieve its debt level by suing someone over this shining turd of a case.
The current case is BT versus Prodigy, which will be played out in the US courts.
God help us, I actually remember Prestel - to think that that POS would rise up zombie like to threaten the Web...
--NgI couldn't give two flying shits for those with no ambition or self-motivation.
That's not what he said. He referred to those having very high ambition. Like so many other things, ambition and motivation are aspects of a personality which have to be traded against other aspects of life.
I have a family whose welfare must be set against my own need for self advancement. So do you (judging by your website). Do fend for yourself alone, or are they part of the equation.?Of course, they are.
Fend for themselves is fine when you're ahead of the pack. But that devil take the hindmost approach has a habit of biting you in the ass.
Society does exist - and not just as a collection of individuals and families
--Ng
If you lose $50K and haven't kept backups, then you're surely guilty of contributory negligence. If you had insurance for loss of business owning to buggy code, they wouldn't pay out ... and rightly so.
It seems to me that the problem is that software flakiness (and unavailability of the means of redress) makes placing boundaries around likelihood of loss extremely difficult. Effectively software use is uninsurable.
(Yes, I do know that you can get loss of business insurance via software unavailability, but the terms of such policies are ruinous).
--Ng
In other words, you have the (legal) right to view the content, but not the power to do so
The granting of rights without the power to exercise them is the starting point for cheating the people out of everything that they might have thought they struggled for
From a historical point of view, the DMCA is not the worst act to flow from a supine Congress too concerned with grovelling to corporate paymasters, but it certainly looks like one of the worst stinkers in current democratic polities.
Not - I hasten to add - that I believe that the European powers will be long in kow-towing to the media corporates (mentioning no Murdochs).--Ng
You and I know damn well that FTP after a 1690 reference has got bugger all to do with File Transport Protocol.
As for the market always being right, can you define further this statement? Right for whom, by what criteria, and right in which ways (morally, socially, numerically). Depending upon your answer, I might be able to come up with counterexamples.
Unless you're a believer in Ayn Rand's Objectivist nonsense, in which case I won't bother wasting bandwidth
BTW, I think you might find many libertarians who would object to your statement that Libertarianism is about letting "companies like MS do what they want".
--Ng