There's several problems here.. MS would be required to licence the OS's themselves, as they are patented. Anyone could licence and clone to their hearts content, hence, Microsoft is robbed of it's best money maker. There are to many holes in what's suggested..
Not only that, but it would start to get at hardware manufacturers as well..
Looks like when given the chance, we all becouse Microsoft.. We now want to do EXACTLY what they force others to do. This is like Raping a rapist, then cutting off his dick. It may seem right, but it's hardly ethical. Shall we become what we fear the most?
The POINT of the laws, and the laws themselves are two different things.. The laws, as implemented, give no power the help the customer, merely to help the competition..
Free Software DOES in a off kinda way help consumers, but the Anti-trust laws are aimed at helping COMPEITION, not really what's best for the consumer..
And anything that targets needing to give away IP data, as in the hardware makers, would need to apply to everyone.. NOT just Microsoft..
And the problem with hardware vendors and IP isn't related to the Microsoft trial..
A breakup is one thing.. What RMS is suggesting is quite a bit more..
Imagine if what he's suggesting happen to Microsoft happened to AT&T. EVERYTHING that At&t ever did would be open for anyone who wanted to pay the fee to licence it. Oh, and anyone who wanted to do things WITH what was left of the company would also have to publish everything about their equipment.. What's he's suggesting is MUCH more then what happened to AT&T..
So you support the ability for the federal government to dissolve companies? That's what these would do.. Everything Microsoft owns would be out in the open.
Well, I can agree with youin part.. EVERYTHING except your reponse to point 1. Microsoft runs on over 85% of computers. Many comapnies, and all of our general interests, are all on the shoulders of these systems. It'd be like if suddenly water was the sole property of one company (Ok, THAT'S extreme). It'd be in the general good to force them to open it up..
I DO agree that it's simply NOT RIGHT to force them to do it.. But what's right and what's for the general good are two different things..
People who own property shouldn't be forced to turn it over to the government, yet, eminent (sp?) domain is there for a reason.. The same applies to IP in my mind..
But now we're on to the realm of personal opinion..
Now WAIT a minute.. Forcing a company to serve as a public service is NOT very Capitolist. To make Microsoft serve as the catalyst to IP reform is NOT the way to go.. Open Source is looking arrogant for even suggesting this..
I suppose the same would apply to Red Hat being given Hard specs to allow the Linux Kernel to function on new hardware as well?
Oh wait, this is about solving MICROSOFT, isn't it?
I have to say that point 1 a VERY good one. I feel points 2 and 3 are in there to artificially help the free software movement and NOT to help solve the Microsoft dilemma.
What would forcing Microsoft to cross licence ALL of there patents DO beside's make Microsoft utterly useless.. I mean, something needs to be done, but hell, removing their legs AND arms is a little to far.. There is a difference between solving the problem that exists, and disolving Microsoft..
And forcing Microsoft to not allow certification of their OS on a machine? Again, this would only force hardware makers to show their hands, NOT solve the Microsoft problem..
RMS really needs to think about what he writes, and defend them as he writes..
EXACLTY what I was about to say in a comment..;-P I've ben putting off buying one for a while, but this is a darned good reason.. Ok, so it's a silly reason, but if it's enough to make me buy one, it's a good one..;-P
That's great Linux to Linux, but this SHOULD work with any IPSec software.. In addition, this will allow you to verify the identity of the sender of the packet's themselves, not merely encryption of the data..
Well, I just did a simple search on www.samba.org on 'speed' and found several links to exactly what they shoud have done for these tests. It's obviouse they never tried.
I've found the same sort of resources without much effort all over the net, including at apache's web page itself.
And as far as the microsoft knowledgebase, I DO use it myself, but it doesn't simply return what your looking for.. It returns several hundred possibilities, which you must then 'sift' thru. nearly the same queries can be run against www.hotbot.com to get the results..
I wonder if this is due to the development tools used. I'd like to see how many of those lines where part of Visual C++ programs, where Microsoft, in their supreme wisdom, writes half the code FOR you..
Yes, but I wasn't really impressed.. It's autodetection is done by loading EVERY module, and seeing which ones worked.. It's the kernel itself autodetecting, not the installer.. In the case of the X installation, it's calling X --probe (I think) to detect things..
And yes, I KNOW about man rpm and man --help. I also know that I can buy a Chiltons to see everything about my car, but I'd much rather be able to just add some oil without having to READ it..;-P
1) Boot up. 2) Answer some basic questions(This is a server) 3) You edited a partition table with a simple editor
(You proceed with the install, and, having selected 'Server', have 3 times more bloat installed on your box, including many, MANY daemons that Red Hat Will later find holes in, yet, not knowing what's running, becouse you selected Server install, never get updated leaving your server wide open. Oh, and you're wasting 25% of your drive becouse you didn't use the partition editor exactly right, and it doesn't tell you you didn't utilize it correctly. You really didn't KNOW that once you divided it to three primary partitions without using an extended partition you where dead in the water..Oh, and upon bootup, while initing a module you didn't know about, it locks up your machien.. Doh! Partitions corupt, gotta fck it.. Doh! Bad INODES!!)
Really? So the 20 Million copies of Office currently in use will cease to exist in 8 months? Wow.. So.. Have you called CNN yet? They may want to cover THAT event..
Slashdot Mirror
There's several problems here.. MS would be required to licence the OS's themselves, as they are patented. Anyone could licence and clone to their hearts content, hence, Microsoft is robbed of it's best money maker. There are to many holes in what's suggested..
Not only that, but it would start to get at hardware manufacturers as well..
Looks like when given the chance, we all becouse Microsoft.. We now want to do EXACTLY what they force others to do. This is like Raping a rapist, then cutting off his dick. It may seem right, but it's hardly ethical. Shall we become what we fear the most?
The POINT of the laws, and the laws themselves are two different things.. The laws, as implemented, give no power the help the customer, merely to help the competition..
Free Software DOES in a off kinda way help consumers, but the Anti-trust laws are aimed at helping COMPEITION, not really what's best for the consumer..
And anything that targets needing to give away IP data, as in the hardware makers, would need to apply to everyone.. NOT just Microsoft..
And the problem with hardware vendors and IP isn't related to the Microsoft trial..
A breakup is one thing.. What RMS is suggesting is quite a bit more..
Imagine if what he's suggesting happen to Microsoft happened to AT&T. EVERYTHING that At&t ever did would be open for anyone who wanted to pay the fee to licence it. Oh, and anyone who wanted to do things WITH what was left of the company would also have to publish everything about their equipment.. What's he's suggesting is MUCH more then what happened to AT&T..
Ahh.. Then you shoulda gone to work for 'em when it was Digital that he worked for.. ;-P
And I'd say sure, but you'd need a REALLY good resume.. ;-P Or 20 years of experience..
So you support the ability for the federal government to dissolve companies? That's what these would do.. Everything Microsoft owns would be out in the open.
'Off with their Head'!!
-- RMS on Microsoft..
Well, I can agree with youin part.. EVERYTHING except your reponse to point 1. Microsoft runs on over 85% of computers. Many comapnies, and all of our general interests, are all on the shoulders of these systems. It'd be like if suddenly water was the sole property of one company (Ok, THAT'S extreme). It'd be in the general good to force them to open it up..
I DO agree that it's simply NOT RIGHT to force them to do it.. But what's right and what's for the general good are two different things..
People who own property shouldn't be forced to turn it over to the government, yet, eminent (sp?) domain is there for a reason.. The same applies to IP in my mind..
But now we're on to the realm of personal opinion..
Now WAIT a minute.. Forcing a company to serve as a public service is NOT very Capitolist. To make Microsoft serve as the catalyst to IP reform is NOT the way to go.. Open Source is looking arrogant for even suggesting this..
I suppose the same would apply to Red Hat being given Hard specs to allow the Linux Kernel to function on new hardware as well?
Oh wait, this is about solving MICROSOFT, isn't it?
I have to say that point 1 a VERY good one. I feel points 2 and 3 are in there to artificially help the free software movement and NOT to help solve the Microsoft dilemma.
What would forcing Microsoft to cross licence ALL of there patents DO beside's make Microsoft utterly useless.. I mean, something needs to be done, but hell, removing their legs AND arms is a little to far.. There is a difference between solving the problem that exists, and disolving Microsoft..
And forcing Microsoft to not allow certification of their OS on a machine? Again, this would only force hardware makers to show their hands, NOT solve the Microsoft problem..
RMS really needs to think about what he writes, and defend them as he writes..
EXACLTY what I was about to say in a comment.. ;-P I've ben putting off buying one for a while, but this is a darned good reason.. Ok, so it's a silly reason, but if it's enough to make me buy one, it's a good one.. ;-P
That's great Linux to Linux, but this SHOULD work with any IPSec software.. In addition, this will allow you to verify the identity of the sender of the packet's themselves, not merely encryption of the data..
Well, I just did a simple search on www.samba.org on 'speed' and found several links to exactly what they shoud have done for these tests. It's obviouse they never tried.
I've found the same sort of resources without much effort all over the net, including at apache's web page itself.
And as far as the microsoft knowledgebase, I DO use it myself, but it doesn't simply return what your looking for.. It returns several hundred possibilities, which you must then 'sift' thru. nearly the same queries can be run against www.hotbot.com to get the results..
And I'm willing to bet they actually have a life.. Terrible, isn't it..
We shall have to double their workload.. They obviously have time..
Oh dear.. I USED that system in the Air Force.. ;-P YOU wrote it?? I now must kill you.. ;-P
Yes, and technically, these are NOT WRITTEN lines of code..
Not to mention things like MFC.. Heck, one function call can actually serve what 500 lines would do..
And where, if you where an NT newbie, would you get the data on using regedit to change the default networking settings?
I wonder if this is due to the development tools used. I'd like to see how many of those lines where part of Visual C++ programs, where Microsoft, in their supreme wisdom, writes half the code FOR you..
No, but a guy who writes 5,000 lines that work well and are thought out IS better then the guy who just kicks out 10,000 lines of hack.. ;-P
Yes, but I wasn't really impressed.. It's autodetection is done by loading EVERY module, and seeing which ones worked.. It's the kernel itself autodetecting, not the installer.. In the case of the X installation, it's calling X --probe (I think) to detect things..
;-P
And yes, I KNOW about man rpm and man --help. I also know that I can buy a Chiltons to see everything about my car, but I'd much rather be able to just add some oil without having to READ it..
I truely can't wait to see it..
No, it's not.. The GUI is NOT on top of a CLI. X Windows exists without x CLI.. Ever seea CLI in an X Terminal?
No, THIS is what happened during your install:
;-P
1) Boot up.
2) Answer some basic questions(This is a server)
3) You edited a partition table with a simple editor
(You proceed with the install, and, having selected 'Server', have 3 times more bloat installed on your box, including many, MANY daemons that Red Hat Will later find holes in, yet, not knowing what's running, becouse you selected Server install, never get updated leaving your server wide open. Oh, and you're wasting 25% of your drive becouse you didn't use the partition editor exactly right, and it doesn't tell you you didn't utilize it correctly. You really didn't KNOW that once you divided it to three primary partitions without using an extended partition you where dead in the water..Oh, and upon bootup, while initing a module you didn't know about, it locks up your machien.. Doh! Partitions corupt, gotta fck it.. Doh! Bad INODES!!)
I'll stop now..
Really? So the 20 Million copies of Office currently in use will cease to exist in 8 months? Wow.. So.. Have you called CNN yet? They may want to cover THAT event..
It all depends on the person..
Some like to type it, some like to click it.. This way, we provide both..