Is it really that common not to have an employment contract though? I'm in the UK, and I'd not put up with not having a proper, signed contract for very long unless there was a damn good reason for it. (Even then, I'd very much keep my options open)
But that's not what's happening. If I use a GPLed library in an application, unmodified, then in what way am I denying people access to the code of that library by not GPLing the rest of the application?
I understand the legal arguments, that as the library is linked in to the resulting binary it is *technically* a derivative work, I just don't happen to agree with them. As I understand it, if all you do is use the normal output of some GPLed code, then your code is not required to be GPLed. To me, the "normal output" of a library is the result of making the API calls.
Do a search for "Linux," for crying out loud, and take a gander at the first thing that shows up for display
Well, I got this:
"Learn Linux Online - training.affordablelearning.co.uk
Get trained in Linux using unique training methods and online tutor support. Try our courses for free before joining."
The other two "sponsored links" are similar; the first of the real results is to linux.org.uk. (I'm in the UK; looks like it may give preference to local results)
What was it I was supposed to be getting angry about?
In my personal experience, everything you say in your post (especially the numbered list) applies just as well to XP.
The biggest problem facing Windows users are the users themselves. Move them all to Linux without educating them and they'll have much the same problems, once the malware writers have followed them.
All that's needed is for the html rendering to run is userspace, rather than kernel space.
What makes you think that mshtml.dll runs in kernel space?
*My* point was that Outlook, OE, Help, etc all use mshtml.dll to render HTML because it's a standard system component. The alternative to using a standard system component for a given piece of functionality is to code it yourself. If every supplier who required HTML support did so, then you would end up with the situation I described.
That is why a bug in IE probably affects the listed apps - because they all use mshtml.dll to render HTML, not because the IE bug affects the kernel.
Why oh why did they think it was a good idea to have an RPC server on by default when there's probably less than 1% of users who would use the feature?
Switch it off (it is possible, but not straightforward) and see what breaks; it's an essential component, right or wrong.
How many insecurities has Internet Explorer had since it was launched with XP? I lost count.
So, you don't actually know, then? How can you criticise them meaningfully if you don't know? Saying "I can't remember, but I'm sure it's had lots!" is just spreading FUD.
And, thanks to Microsoft integrating the Internet Exploder
That just looks childish and detracts further from your argument
engine so tightly into their OS, if a bug affects IE then it probably also affects Outlook, Outlook Express, MS Help and gawd knows what else.
The alternative, of course, is to have seperate HTML rendering components for every application that wishes to render HTML. That would lead to bloat, unnecessarily duplicated code, differing standards compliance across applications, multiple codebases to fix, and all the other bad things that pointlessly replicating code leads to.
The correct thing to do would be to publish a fixed API and make the rendering engine to use a configurable choice (whether system-wide or per app) so that other people could easily write their own or adapt (eg) Gecko to comply, giving users a choice.
Incidentally, the same is true of KHTML, which (last time I looked) was integrated pretty tightly into KDE. True, you have a choice to not use KDE, but then I seem to be managing pretty well using XP and not using IE, OE, etc.
I've all but given up on using google to find technical information on or reviews of products that I'm thinking of buying. I'm sick to death of apparently every single result being to some price comparison website or ecommerce site. Even adding the word "review" to the search query makes no difference, as most (if not all) such sites have a facility for users to add reviews. That wouldn't be so bad, but in my experience, at least 9 times out of 10 there are no reviews.
For me, that's completely destroying one of my most important uses of the web.
I don't see why new laws are required. If it's illegal under current copyright law, it's illegal. If not, then it's not, so what's the problem?
Of course, I understand that legislators (and especially politicians) generally like to be seen to be "doing something about the problem", and that making something *even more illegal* is a nice, easy way to achieve that...
Quicken doesn't run on Linux. Therefore, anyone currently using Quicken almost certainly isn't running Linux. Gnucash doesn't run on anything but Linux.
Are you seriously suggesting that Quicken users should switch not only application but OS? Most of these people are going to be non-technical, and not exactly comfortable switching one thing at once, let alone two...
Every time there's a story about one of the *AAs trying to use the legal system to protect their business interests, there are many, many posts here decrying it. "They should move with the times!" they cry, "and not try to prop up an outmoded, dying business model! Adapt or die!"
Every time there's a story about outsourcing of jobs, there are many, many posts decrying the practrice. "American programmers can't possibly compete, the cost of living is so muc higher here!" they cry, "this is short-sighted and damages the economy in the long run for quick profits now!"
Where are the "adapt or die" posts then? True, there are one or two, but they are very much drowned out - as are the few "but copyright is a good system, when not abused" and "they deserve to be paid for their work" posts on the *AA stories.
And some of us (who actually understand capitalism better than the so-called "intellectual property" advocates) believe that if we want someone to pay us money, then we should actually have to WORK for it - by providing the service of programming in return for compensation.
But if it takes me a year to create a piece of software, then (if I can only be paid for it once) I need to find somone willing to spend a year's salary on it. That is, large projects that take a number of people a long time to create need very wealthy sponsors/commissioners to invest a lot of money. It's unlikely that such people/groups will be willing to just give the resultant code away without some way of recouping their investment.
Only greedy people think they should get paid every time their work is copied, and not just the first time they sell it to someone.
There are two ways to recoup the cost of a lengthy project that requires a lot of effort. Either sell it for a lot of money once, or sell it for a little money a lot of times. Of the two, generally, the latter is far easier to achieve, especially for projects (such as feature films) that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user.
No, the GPL does not protect the rights of the user - in fact, it specifically disclaims *any* hold over the user of the software. It protects the rights of the *author*, by forcing anyone who distributes the software (modified or not) to make the source available. (Whether or not the author has that right in some cases is far from clear cut, for example when the changes amount to a far larger body of code than what is being changed, but I digress.)
For example, in KDE if Konqueror pops up a message box, it's not forced on top. Which means that I can bring the Konqueror window on top, covering the message box. The konqueror window will not redraw because it's waiting for the message box to close
Just to butt in briefly - that is my number 1 pet hate; it drives me absolutely bat shit insane whenever it happens (to whatever app, not just konqi). It doesn't help that upwards of half the modal dialogues I see shouldn't be modal in the first place...
We might not see these cpus in desktops any time soon, it depends on how proccessor intensive longhorn is.
No - you said it yourself, an area where extra CPU power is useful is video work. More and more people are getting digital camcorders, and want to transfer the movies to PC to email to friends, burn to DVD, or whatever. Ordinary people are going to ask for PCs that are "good at video".
Further, if the CPU manufacturers move exclusively to dual-core procs, where are the OEMs going to get single-core ones from? Make no mistake, if Intel and AMD want this to happen, it will happen, and everyone else will either have to go along for the ride, or build their own processors.
No offence, but this is offtopic; congratulations on getting modded up to +5 for a post that has almost nothing to do with the article. I don't blame yo, but the sheep-like moderators, modding up anything anti-MS and pro-linux.
Two things I sort of take issue with, though:
as well as forced upgrades
What forced upgrades, how? My company is still using Office 2000, and have not been "forced" to upgrade, despite some clients using Office XP; the documents still open just fine. There are still machines running NT 4; similarly, nothing is forcing us to upgrade them. Sure, support is running out/has run out, but the same is true of older releases of Linux distros. Without a leet C hacker or two on staff, businesses using them are similarly "forced" to upgrade if they wish to have continued support.
will be advocating limiting the use of MS products to anyone who will listen
Rather you should be advocating the use of the best tool for the job. If that tool happens to be from MS, then so be it. MS isn't the answer to everything, but then neither is Linux.
How so? If they actually sue you to prevent you from distributing your stuff, then in a sense, yes they are. I don't know if copyright law specifically covers preventing others from exercising their rights, but you could certainly counter-sue I'd imagine (IANAL of course).
If all they do is say "Oi! That's stolen!" then you're free to say "No, I wrote it - now prove otherwise", and nothing has been infringed.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really that common not to have an employment contract though? I'm in the UK, and I'd not put up with not having a proper, signed contract for very long unless there was a damn good reason for it. (Even then, I'd very much keep my options open)
But that's not what's happening. If I use a GPLed library in an application, unmodified, then in what way am I denying people access to the code of that library by not GPLing the rest of the application?
I understand the legal arguments, that as the library is linked in to the resulting binary it is *technically* a derivative work, I just don't happen to agree with them. As I understand it, if all you do is use the normal output of some GPLed code, then your code is not required to be GPLed. To me, the "normal output" of a library is the result of making the API calls.
That's the kind of drive you should have for your work, otherwise go do an MBA and become a manager
You know, some managers have that sort of drive and passion for their work, too.
Do a search for "Linux," for crying out loud, and take a gander at the first thing that shows up for display
Well, I got this:
"Learn Linux Online - training.affordablelearning.co.uk
Get trained in Linux using unique training methods and online tutor support. Try our courses for free before joining."
The other two "sponsored links" are similar; the first of the real results is to linux.org.uk. (I'm in the UK; looks like it may give preference to local results)
What was it I was supposed to be getting angry about?
In my personal experience, everything you say in your post (especially the numbered list) applies just as well to XP.
The biggest problem facing Windows users are the users themselves. Move them all to Linux without educating them and they'll have much the same problems, once the malware writers have followed them.
All that's needed is for the html rendering to run is userspace, rather than kernel space.
What makes you think that mshtml.dll runs in kernel space?
*My* point was that Outlook, OE, Help, etc all use mshtml.dll to render HTML because it's a standard system component. The alternative to using a standard system component for a given piece of functionality is to code it yourself. If every supplier who required HTML support did so, then you would end up with the situation I described.
That is why a bug in IE probably affects the listed apps - because they all use mshtml.dll to render HTML, not because the IE bug affects the kernel.
Doesn't IE run as LOCAL SYSTEM or something?
No it does not, at least not on XP (the only Windows version I can check at the moment).
IE is integrated into the kernel
Sorry, you're going to have to supply some proof of that.
iexplore.exe is just a shell that calls the kernel to render pages.
Almost right - iexplore.exe is just a shell that calls mshtml.dll to render pages.
It depends what you are blaming on the CAN-SPAM act. If you are blaming it for increasing spam, then you are abusing statistics.
/. headline says "Can-Spam Increased Spam", so I think it's clear what the submitter was blaming on it.
Well, the
The amount of solar radiation incident on the surface of a sphere at the distance of the Earth's orbit is approx 1370W/m^2.
:-)
I'm not an EE, but I used to be a physicist
Linui
That has to be the most ridiculous fake pluralisation I've ever seen.
Why oh why did they think it was a good idea to have an RPC server on by default when there's probably less than 1% of users who would use the feature?
Switch it off (it is possible, but not straightforward) and see what breaks; it's an essential component, right or wrong.
How many insecurities has Internet Explorer had since it was launched with XP? I lost count.
So, you don't actually know, then? How can you criticise them meaningfully if you don't know? Saying "I can't remember, but I'm sure it's had lots!" is just spreading FUD.
And, thanks to Microsoft integrating the Internet Exploder
That just looks childish and detracts further from your argument
engine so tightly into their OS, if a bug affects IE then it probably also affects Outlook, Outlook Express, MS Help and gawd knows what else.
The alternative, of course, is to have seperate HTML rendering components for every application that wishes to render HTML. That would lead to bloat, unnecessarily duplicated code, differing standards compliance across applications, multiple codebases to fix, and all the other bad things that pointlessly replicating code leads to.
The correct thing to do would be to publish a fixed API and make the rendering engine to use a configurable choice (whether system-wide or per app) so that other people could easily write their own or adapt (eg) Gecko to comply, giving users a choice.
Incidentally, the same is true of KHTML, which (last time I looked) was integrated pretty tightly into KDE. True, you have a choice to not use KDE, but then I seem to be managing pretty well using XP and not using IE, OE, etc.
You bastard, I was drinking coffee when I read that and almost spat it all over my new monitor.
I've all but given up on using google to find technical information on or reviews of products that I'm thinking of buying. I'm sick to death of apparently every single result being to some price comparison website or ecommerce site. Even adding the word "review" to the search query makes no difference, as most (if not all) such sites have a facility for users to add reviews. That wouldn't be so bad, but in my experience, at least 9 times out of 10 there are no reviews.
For me, that's completely destroying one of my most important uses of the web.
I don't see why new laws are required. If it's illegal under current copyright law, it's illegal. If not, then it's not, so what's the problem?
Of course, I understand that legislators (and especially politicians) generally like to be seen to be "doing something about the problem", and that making something *even more illegal* is a nice, easy way to achieve that...
Quicken doesn't run on Linux. Therefore, anyone currently using Quicken almost certainly isn't running Linux. Gnucash doesn't run on anything but Linux.
Are you seriously suggesting that Quicken users should switch not only application but OS? Most of these people are going to be non-technical, and not exactly comfortable switching one thing at once, let alone two...
Oh I don't know, I see plenty of asinine comments here modded up to +5; it just depends on whether you're towing the party line or not...
Every time there's a story about one of the *AAs trying to use the legal system to protect their business interests, there are many, many posts here decrying it. "They should move with the times!" they cry, "and not try to prop up an outmoded, dying business model! Adapt or die!"
Every time there's a story about outsourcing of jobs, there are many, many posts decrying the practrice. "American programmers can't possibly compete, the cost of living is so muc higher here!" they cry, "this is short-sighted and damages the economy in the long run for quick profits now!"
Where are the "adapt or die" posts then? True, there are one or two, but they are very much drowned out - as are the few "but copyright is a good system, when not abused" and "they deserve to be paid for their work" posts on the *AA stories.
And some of us (who actually understand capitalism better than the so-called "intellectual property" advocates) believe that if we want someone to pay us money, then we should actually have to WORK for it - by providing the service of programming in return for compensation.
But if it takes me a year to create a piece of software, then (if I can only be paid for it once) I need to find somone willing to spend a year's salary on it. That is, large projects that take a number of people a long time to create need very wealthy sponsors/commissioners to invest a lot of money. It's unlikely that such people/groups will be willing to just give the resultant code away without some way of recouping their investment.
Only greedy people think they should get paid every time their work is copied, and not just the first time they sell it to someone.
There are two ways to recoup the cost of a lengthy project that requires a lot of effort. Either sell it for a lot of money once, or sell it for a little money a lot of times. Of the two, generally, the latter is far easier to achieve, especially for projects (such as feature films) that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user.
No, the GPL does not protect the rights of the user - in fact, it specifically disclaims *any* hold over the user of the software. It protects the rights of the *author*, by forcing anyone who distributes the software (modified or not) to make the source available. (Whether or not the author has that right in some cases is far from clear cut, for example when the changes amount to a far larger body of code than what is being changed, but I digress.)
Not necessarily - reduce the pressure enough and water will boil at room temperature, no increase in energy input required.
For example, in KDE if Konqueror pops up a message box, it's not forced on top. Which means that I can bring the Konqueror window on top, covering the message box. The konqueror window will not redraw because it's waiting for the message box to close
Just to butt in briefly - that is my number 1 pet hate; it drives me absolutely bat shit insane whenever it happens (to whatever app, not just konqi). It doesn't help that upwards of half the modal dialogues I see shouldn't be modal in the first place...
We might not see these cpus in desktops any time soon, it depends on how proccessor intensive longhorn is.
No - you said it yourself, an area where extra CPU power is useful is video work. More and more people are getting digital camcorders, and want to transfer the movies to PC to email to friends, burn to DVD, or whatever. Ordinary people are going to ask for PCs that are "good at video".
Further, if the CPU manufacturers move exclusively to dual-core procs, where are the OEMs going to get single-core ones from? Make no mistake, if Intel and AMD want this to happen, it will happen, and everyone else will either have to go along for the ride, or build their own processors.
No offence, but this is offtopic; congratulations on getting modded up to +5 for a post that has almost nothing to do with the article. I don't blame yo, but the sheep-like moderators, modding up anything anti-MS and pro-linux.
Two things I sort of take issue with, though:
as well as forced upgrades
What forced upgrades, how? My company is still using Office 2000, and have not been "forced" to upgrade, despite some clients using Office XP; the documents still open just fine. There are still machines running NT 4; similarly, nothing is forcing us to upgrade them. Sure, support is running out/has run out, but the same is true of older releases of Linux distros. Without a leet C hacker or two on staff, businesses using them are similarly "forced" to upgrade if they wish to have continued support.
will be advocating limiting the use of MS products to anyone who will listen
Rather you should be advocating the use of the best tool for the job. If that tool happens to be from MS, then so be it. MS isn't the answer to everything, but then neither is Linux.
How so? If they actually sue you to prevent you from distributing your stuff, then in a sense, yes they are. I don't know if copyright law specifically covers preventing others from exercising their rights, but you could certainly counter-sue I'd imagine (IANAL of course).
If all they do is say "Oi! That's stolen!" then you're free to say "No, I wrote it - now prove otherwise", and nothing has been infringed.
shoddy (possibly non-existant) fact checking
I refer you to the FAQ - there is *no* editorial fact-checking performed here.