I'll assume you're the same Anonymous Coward as before. If this assumption is incorrect, then skip to the "If the latter interpretation is correct" paragraph. Actually, whether or not you're the OP is irrelevant.
[now]: OSS in the server room is great. Those people are a small portion of our staff adn trainign is not a large cost.
the desktop is another matter.
I see no contradiction
[before]: With our servers we use some BSD's because they are secure. We had one person say we should have a Linux box acting as our firewall, I promptly ordered them a new server and a nic with 8 risers (we only needed 4 machines behind it as it was and extra layer of protection). I then promptly told him he had to use NetBSD on it.
A firewall is not a desktop system. You were claiming that:
[Introducing] OSS throws a monkey wrench in [things running smoothly].
So we have two cases
You were talking about "[introducing] OSS thows a monkey wrench into [things running smoothly]" when used on the desktop where the whole Linux/BSD story is entirely tangential and pointless because you were actually talking about the desktop
You were talking about "OSS" meaning "Linux" and talking about Linux throwing a monkey wrench into a BSD/Microsoft shop.
My post assumed the latter; my apologies if your Linux/BSD story was irrelevant to your post; it threw me off of your true desktop discussion.
If the latter interpretation of the OP is correct, then I stand by my post and your new post discussing OSS on the desktop is the irrelevant one and there is a contradiction--BSD is OSS!
This disregards several aspects of the OP and your new post, but this is what I'm choosing to argue for now. Others will likely argue the other aspects and I have no desire to argue for hours with Anonymous Cowards.
With our servers we use some BSD's because they are secure. We had one person say we should have a Linux box acting as our firewall, I promptly ordered them a new server and a nic with 8 risers (we only needed 4 machines behind it as it was and extra layer of protection). I then promptly told him he had to use NetBSD on it.
...
Anyway, no we want things to run smoothly and OSS throws a monkey wrench in that. People expect the crashes, expect the problems that windows brings so we know our enemy. Adding OSS to the mix is just opening a whole new can of worms.
That's rather funny. Open Source Software (the expansion of "OSS") seems to be working quite well for you (NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD).
All Microsoft software sold at Purdue University is the full version. It not only has a label on the disk, but as you noted, the software doesn't check for previous versions.
While here (UIowa) the Windows disc also has the holograms and junk, and it doesn't check for a previous install or require an older cd key, the agreement you sign when you get the software states that it's an upgrade license only! Now maybe you were more lucky than I, but that's how it is here. This is why you read the fine print.
As for the license itself, yes, it does say that the license only applies if you graduate... but the software doesn't stop working, so in reality it means little.
Actually, it means quite a bit. It means that, prior to the university signing the deal with Microsoft, students were accountable for their software. Now, if the Uni is audited by Microsoft, the university is involved with the student pc licenses. (And if you disagree, you need the cash to hire the lawyers to prove it if Microsoft sues.) Additionally, with software activation, it's only a short hop before you will have to call home to MSFT every so often to verify that your use is legal (e.g. on WindowsUpdate or when auto-checking for updates), so your "free" lunch ain't so free.
ah, you lose your MSFT licenses. Hey, there has to be some disadvantage to being a loser.
From the tone of your reply, I'll assume you disagree with me thinking that this is sub-par.
IIRC, you don't lose your academic version license when you leave the University (at least with Microsoft; with others (e.g. RSI) you do lose your license). So essentially, if you run out of money at the uni or otherwise have to leave (not everyone who leaves the uni is a "loser"), all the money you spent on this software is wasted money--especially since you may well have been able to buy at least one or several academic licensed softwares. I just don't think it's worth it. You may disagree, and you're welcome to throw as much money at Microsoft as you really wish, but I don't want to partake in that particular activity.
I've gotten a couple of these CDs from friends at IU and they're full versions of Windows/Office.
First of all, if you're not licensing your own version, you're going to cause your university massive headaches later on down the road, either when they want to leave MS for another vendor (or none at all), or when Microsoft sues them (for either the first or second time) to strong-arm them into the Next New Licensing Scheme. So if indeed you're pirating MS software from your uni knock it the h*ll off. Sorry to be harsh with you, but nobody wins in the long run when you rip off software, be it Microsoft or anyone else. (you may profit in the short-term, but I'd argue that you'll have massive problems (e.g. Palladium) down the road, as well as causing other people headaches (due to assinine Licensing/Activation/CD Checking crap)). It's people like you who give Microsoft the excuse to implement ever more draconian activation and security checks, and it's people like you that give gaming companies the excuse to include those craptastic CD checks (I hate those like the plague). [There are, of course, many other factors involved, such as the customers who just sit there and take ever more draconian anti-"piracy" checks, and then there're the companies themselves who're doing it, but I'm talking you you right now.
Now, on to the point I was really trying to make. Yes, it's (at least here) a full version of MS Office, but the Windows is (at least here) only an upgrade license. Not that you notice anything, because they seem to require activation and never check for either an existing install or another Windows license key, but that's what the fine print of the agreement says and that's what truly matters when the auditors come knocking.
Microsoft has had deals for years with IU, IUPUI, Purdue, Ball State, et al. for their products. Basically, you get all their products in a few different packs for $5 each.
My school has this sweet deal too. Just a few niggling details:
If you follow the money trail, my school takes somewhere between USD30 and USD70 (or maybe more) from my fees (not tuition; the campus usage fees) per semester for the campus student licenses. So we're actually paying somewhere between USD240 and USD560 before the up-front costs (USD5 for Windows XP upgrade; USD6 or 10 for Office full version). The campus tour guides never seem to mention this point when they're talking about the program, and all the students and parents I've talked to about it had no idea these funds were being taken and sent straight to Microsoft for the software.
Additionally, your Windows is an upgrade copy of Windows only. That means that you must already have a Windows license (though it doesn't seme to check for this in any way; nice if MSFT is gonna come back and audit you to push you to License 7.0). This makes the Windows side of the license practically useless--the version of Windows you have likely works just fine for what you use it, and chances are pretty good you already have XP home, if not pro! Luckily, the MS Office and VStudio, tmk, are full versions, so it's not as useless. But whatever you got with your computer is probably just fine and works for you (nice for Microsoft if you have a competitor of theirs!) Finally, the academic prices are already dirt-cheap (relatively speaking). I don't think the MS site license is really very useful in terms of cheapening software acquisition costs!
Finally, you cannot keep the license if you don't graduate. That's right; if you quit for a while or if you're kicked out, you lose your license. Not nearly as sweet a deal as the academic price, now is it?
There are other problems with it from the university side, including problems if they ever want to stop paying Microsoft because maybe they want to standardize on Keynote or OpenOffice or something (long, expensive audit there!), but these are most of the immediately visible student-side problems.
Much better than my meagre illustration. Bravo.
It even makes a great sig:
Sir or Madam: The Entity known as God (a subsidiary of Holiness, Inc.) has coyrighted Her masterpiece, known as "The Sunset". The sale of your painting of "The Sunset", an unauthorized reproduction, is in violation of Her copyright of "The Sunset" and you are to appear in court on the following date....
Right those dark forces and the artists, software engineers, and musicians who need a paycheck to live are preventing this wonderful (socialist and impossible) vision from happening.
See, now I'm sad. Because up until this point, we were having a great conversation. And now you've gone sarcastic and soured the whole batch of milk. "Dark forces" indeed.
What "socialist and impossible vision" am I talking about? I BLOODY WELL AGREED WITH YOU THAT PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT ARE GENERALLY ON TRACK. Unless you were referring to copyrights and patents as socialist (which they are in a way, since in a truly free economy, plays and such are free for all to copy, with no restrictions).
How can I program great programs if I cannot get paid for the software I produce!?
Again, where did I claim that you could not get paid for the programs you produce?
NEXT TIME YOU REPLY, PLEASE AT LEAST BE CONSIDERATE ENOUGH TO READ THE POST. Crumbs. Now I've done got my panties in a twist.
On top of that, the producers aren't even producing anything, they're just bottling it and selling it to me!
Very true, and that is a hole in the example itself, but not in the underlying concept. I believe that the point--merely because it is profitable to inhibit natural abilities is not sufficient proof of the exercise the natural ability being theft (let alone immoral). Both of us could name other examples of bad business models that don't need propping up via legislation.;) [maybe this point wasn't clear because of my lack of proper proofreading.]
However, don't you think the original producer of a new type of air, or music, or idea, has some rights to it, at least for a while (as in our current copyright system)?
"Rights" is a very vague word here, as I discussed previously. For example, in this context, the creator of a work certainly has some rights, e.g. "bragging rights". Nobody can really take those away. However, to turn the question around and restate it: why should the creator of an idea be allowed to prevent others' free exercise of their natural abilities (here, copying)?
Let me put it to you this way: if I ever have a great idea and I am prohibited from selling the results of the idea without everyone else legally being able to steal them from me, then I will simply not release the idea at all.
Again, the word "theft" isn't applicable here. What you're saying is that you won't release your ideas unless you can prevent other people from exercising their natural abilities (which is limiting their freedom). More correctly, you're saying:
[My rewriting of your statement] Let me put it to you this way: if I ever have a great idea and am unable to prevent others from exercising their natural ability to copy this idea, I will simply not release the idea at all.
That is the correct statement. If someone copies your idea, you still have the idea and may implement it. This is patently not true in the case of theft--you no longer have an item which you can sell or use! It's just that, with ideas, others can also implement them and potentially derive profit from their competing implementation. I also would wager that this blanket statement isn't always true. I bet that if you, for example, came up with a great idea to, say, end terrorism or world hunger, you'd probably release it to the world in the interest of the greater good.
It is worth noting that I also would rather not let my ideas (computer code, in this case) simply be used as others wish. Well, that's not true. I don't mind them using some code pretty much as they please. I release that code under the BSD license. With other code, I think that the idea is good enough to warrant people having to give back to me, and I publish that under the GPL and LGPL. It is somewhat selfish, yes. Were we all complete humanitarians, capitalism would collapse and we'd all live in nirvana, each serving each others' needs. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.;)
However, that last paragraph is, at best, tangential. The core of what I'm saying is that, when you boil it down, copyright infringement is not theft. It shares some similarities with theft, but copyright is entirely artificial, created for the hope of greater good (whether it achieves this in its current form is a debate for another day;), whereas theft is natural (due to the fact that there can only be one of any particular item). Copyright violation and theft violation are both illegal, however, and arguably immoral (theft especially). Copyright's existance is based on the idea that we (the government) will prevent people from exercising their natural ability to copy an idea or work for a limited time, in order to allow the creators the ability to gain additional profit from and/or control their works for this limit
Merely depriving someone of profit that they would have were people able to exercise their natural abilities (better word? Your last point is merely a semantic argument really, that I'll address later).
Dangit, that's not even a sentence! I'm really on a roll with this proofreading thing this morning. That should read:
Merely depriving someone of profit that they would have gained were people prohibited from exercising their natural abilities (better word? Your last point is merely a semantic argument really, that I'll address later) is not a sufficient test for "theft" nor of "morality" (the latter is my assertion and somewhat tangential; the former is directly related to the topic at hand).
I can think of one thing the original owner is deprived of, specifically, the profit that might be gained from selling that which is produced by the use of his idea.
Very true. I shouldn't have thrown that line in there at the end. I just kind of tacked it on quickly and hit "submit" and, in hindsight, it was a stupid thing to do, as it totally distracted from the point I was trying to make.:)
Merely depriving someone of profit that they would have were people able to exercise their natural abilities (better word? Your last point is merely a semantic argument really, that I'll address later). For instance, someone could construct a business model based on people paying you for air, but both you and I would agree that this hypothetical person is a fool. One could even pass legislation providing ownership to air like one can own land, thus enabling such a business model (and, in fact, it might even make sense in some situations (artificial environments, for example, like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)). However, both you and I would likely agree that (at least here on earth), in the absence of such artificial barriers to air access, the person is a fool, and that legislation giving air "ownership" is not in the general good! Thus, with this counterexample, I think I've shown that providing additional profit by prohibiting natural abilities is not a good test of whether something is "theft" (or even moral, I'd argue).
It's true, it's not as simple as calling it theft, but it's also not as simple as calling it "not theft."
True. Depriving someone of property is also an action one can naturally make with no prohibition. However, due to the physical nature of it, it is quite obviously wrong (although you can forgo your possession of something for a time by, for example, lending it to someone; borrowing is also not theft, though it does deprive them of their possession).
There is no such thing as a natural right, or really a right at all. There is only that which people cannot take away from you because you or someone else can prevent them from doing so by some force.
Well, you're half-right anyway, from my view. You have natural abilities (e.g. copying and breathing) regardless of whether you're exercising them. And people can prevent you from exercising these abilities by force (the ultimate backing of law). "Rights" are very hazy, I agree. Is the "abilities" nomenclature better?
It is to be noted that copying a recording (or a book or a play manuscript or simply by performing a musical without paying the authors (within the copyright's lifetime, of course), etc.) is not theft, i.e. you are not taking a physical item from someone else and depriving them of their possession of it. While you may certainly steal a recording by stealing the physical medium on which it is stored, or by removing the original after the copy, a simple copy operation is not theft.
It is often (not universally), however, illegal to copy a recording (or book or play manuscript or perform a musical (within the copyright's lifetime, of course), etc.). The reason for this is that various governments of the world, acting as a proxy for the people they govern, have decided that, while naturally one can copy an idea or collection of words and symbols without restriction, in the interests of the greater good, there should be an artificial barrier to copying said ideas, to allow the creator of those ideas to have an artificial monopoly on the copying of those ideas. This monopoly exists for a limited time, so as to prevent the artificial barrier itself from inhibiting creativity (via preventing unanticipated/unauthorized derivative works). So, effectively, the natural ability to copy any idea is forestalled until a later date, in the interest of allowing the artist to collect a living off of his or her creativity, in the hopes that this artist will be able to create more art. So, in essence, copyright is a balance between the natural right to copy and the desire to encourate creative works by making them themselves profitable and offering the art producer control over how their art is used for a time (the whole point of the GPL and other FOSS code licenses).
The morality question is much thornier. On the one side, prohibiting a natural right (i.e. copying an idea) is balanced against the hope of encouraging creativity in areas which, under a totally laissez-faire economy, would be possibly less productive (since, for example, the artist would need to support their work via other means, or may not get started at all). Additionally, if you hold copying, say, a book to be immoral now, is it still imooral after the copyright has expired (an arguably arbitrary date)? Finally, if you take it to the extreme, you copy a book to get it into your brain (like reading a play is a copy into the audience's brains), then letting someone borrow your book or reading a book from a library is immoral!
In short, copyright violation is not theft. It's so very much more complicated than simply calling it "theft", since the original owner isn't deprived of anything!
You see, sex isn't generally free. You're not really taking all the factors into account when calculating your TCI (Total Cost of Intercourse). While certainly it can be, if J. Random Girl and J. Random Dude merely run into each other and throw themselves on the floor and go at it, generally it takes a great deal of cultivation on the part of the male (and also the female, though I'm much less used to that perspective, so here's the male perspective). For instance, did you take into account the days you've waited to approach J. Random Girl, and plotted how to best go about it for minimizing rejection? How about all those dates where you gallantly paid for the check? Or, even more casually, for a one-night stand, while smaller than the Full-On Relationship, you generally must first have an expenditure of effort for the approach, buying her drinks, etc. Now, on the full extremum, conservatives like myself who wish to have Free Sex only after marriage must account for many months, even years of dedicated effort and direct monetary expenditure in order to even begin to have Free Sex (what is the vendor lockin cost of Free Sex with a Wife? How do you account for locking yourself down to a single Sexual Vendor?). And, as all of you are no doubt aware, the TCI is even higher for a Relationship scenario, since acquiring Free Sex also requires regular maintenance of the relationship (again effort and cash (for sacrificial flora, for example)), in addition to effort involved in getting J. Random Girl relaxed enough to even contemplate having sex!
So, in conclusion, generally sex is not free when you account for the entire TCI!
You can complain about copy protection all you want. But you must recognise it is there to cut into black marketeers profits, linux users and other consumers are just the collatoral damage of that war.
Actually, no. Generally, the black marketeers will have either inside sources to the un-DRMed originals, or they will have the resources to break the protection. (Bear in mind that US/Western copyright isn't accepted everywhere (e.g. Iran), and that all it takes is for one entity to un-lock the content for it to be loosed on the black markets!) The best that DRM aims at is keeping the average user from doing what the entity publishing the content (usually the record companies or movie producers) doesn't want them to do. This may be copying to share with a friend, transcoding the DVD to watch on a Palm, or watching the video on a player which hasn't licensed the DRM scheme (for instance, any non-embedded linux, BSD, BeOS, OS/2, Amiga, or other small OS; embedded Linux has at least one legal player you can buy from). Additionally, it has the annoying side-effect of not letting me, for instance, keep my CDs and DVDs in a nice, safe location and storing the actual movies on a big RAID and NFS-mounting them to my notebook or whatever in order to play them (or transcoding and streaming them to my palm).
So actually, the Digital Restrictions being Managed by Apple, MSFT, and the record and movie houses is leveled directly at you, not the black marketeer.
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't you supposed to compile the kernel with that hardware support in Linux, before that hardware is actually supported by Linux?
Generally, what will happen is that a distribution will ship with a somewhat minimal kernel and a bunch of kernel modules that take care of different things, e.g. USB devices, iptables modules (adds functionality to the firewall), drivers, and so on. So no, if you don't want to do things the hard-ish way, there's no need to ever compile a kernel.
So what's the difference for a user between Windows' installable drivers and Linux' kernel-compiled drivers?
Well, the first difference is that not all drivers are kernel-compiled. You can certainly do that if you wish, which has certain advantages (e.g. on a server, it makes it just a little harder to install a kernel-level rootkit if you disable modules and compile everything in). However, most drivers that people will use are just kernel modules, which are loaded as needed. The difference then between Windows and Linux is that Linux's driver support, due to the fact that generally vendors don't believe it to be worth the investement, is mostly available with your distribution because the drivers aren't coming from the vendor. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. video drivers), if you can use it under Linux, its driver is on your distribution's CD or DVD. With Windows' driver support, due to the fact that most vendors don't believe it worth dying not to support Windows, is generally only available from the vendors and much, much fewer drivers come with your Windows CD or DVD. Now a few drivers may well be shipped on the CD/DVD, but not nearly as many as with Linux, in my experience.
Tablets existed long before Microsoft entered the arena. Google for things like SonicBlue and Siemens' SimPad. They usually came with Windows 9x, CE, or Linux, and were generally what I wish tablets would have stayed--essentially a PDA with a big screen.
If anything (IMHO), Microsoft has done the most to hamper development in this field, with the majority of tablets released after Microsoft's entry being either underpowered, over-priced laptops with a swivel screen or (a little better) underpowered, over-priced laptops with a built-in screen. A few holdouts remain, such as the PepperPad (honestly looks pretty good to me, though I'd like faster USB and wireless and a bigger, higher-res screen) and various niche devices such as Hitachi's VisionPlate (from what I can tell; unfortunately not for sale to the mere mortal such as myself).
I should have more correctly stated that they wouldn't let me get a laptop with no OS (or with DR-DOS); it was XP Home or Pro or no sale. This is counter to your claim that they did offer notebooks sans OS. Please provide links; I'd be very interested in buying such a notebook (as a home user, note; were I to buy 50 pcs, things might well be different). It need not come with Linux; I just don't need yet another Windows license I'm not gonna use.
No, it's because Linux and OS X don't let you run as the full administrator, like windows.
Not quite correct. As of last time I tried, SuSE would let you log in as root. Note, however, that they made the background bright shiny red with big warning triangles and big round lit bomb pictures.:) And they try to convince you to create a regular user account at install time. But you can still log in as root if you wish.
Please note, however, that if you do log in as root, particularly if you browse around on the 'net and use irc and chat and email, that our crack Geek Emergency Rapid Clue Repsonse Squad will be dispatched to your location and will be beating you soundly with Big Foam Cluebats until you Learn. So you do so at your own risk.;)
They often need to set up the user session as soon as you start browsing so that they can show dynamic indications of your shopping cart status and whatnot... even if you haven't yet selected anything to purchase.
Maybe I'm ignernt, but it seems to me that the intelligent thing to do would to gracefully fail if you can't set cookies. For instance, if you store purchased item information in a cookie, you might well consider the fact that, if there's no cookie, there's nothing in the basket!
Regardless, the behaviour the poster described (not verified it personally) where the site doesn't even come up in a usable state is simply miserable programming.
Slashdot Mirror
A firewall is not a desktop system. You were claiming that:
So we have two cases
My post assumed the latter; my apologies if your Linux/BSD story was irrelevant to your post; it threw me off of your true desktop discussion.
If the latter interpretation of the OP is correct, then I stand by my post and your new post discussing OSS on the desktop is the irrelevant one and there is a contradiction--BSD is OSS!
This disregards several aspects of the OP and your new post, but this is what I'm choosing to argue for now. Others will likely argue the other aspects and I have no desire to argue for hours with Anonymous Cowards.
End of [my participation in] Thread.
...
That's rather funny. Open Source Software (the expansion of "OSS") seems to be working quite well for you (NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD).
IIRC, you don't lose your academic version license when you leave the University (at least with Microsoft; with others (e.g. RSI) you do lose your license). So essentially, if you run out of money at the uni or otherwise have to leave (not everyone who leaves the uni is a "loser"), all the money you spent on this software is wasted money--especially since you may well have been able to buy at least one or several academic licensed softwares. I just don't think it's worth it. You may disagree, and you're welcome to throw as much money at Microsoft as you really wish, but I don't want to partake in that particular activity.
Now, on to the point I was really trying to make. Yes, it's (at least here) a full version of MS Office, but the Windows is (at least here) only an upgrade license. Not that you notice anything, because they seem to require activation and never check for either an existing install or another Windows license key, but that's what the fine print of the agreement says and that's what truly matters when the auditors come knocking.
My school has this sweet deal too. Just a few niggling details:
If you follow the money trail, my school takes somewhere between USD30 and USD70 (or maybe more) from my fees (not tuition; the campus usage fees) per semester for the campus student licenses. So we're actually paying somewhere between USD240 and USD560 before the up-front costs (USD5 for Windows XP upgrade; USD6 or 10 for Office full version). The campus tour guides never seem to mention this point when they're talking about the program, and all the students and parents I've talked to about it had no idea these funds were being taken and sent straight to Microsoft for the software.
Additionally, your Windows is an upgrade copy of Windows only. That means that you must already have a Windows license (though it doesn't seme to check for this in any way; nice if MSFT is gonna come back and audit you to push you to License 7.0). This makes the Windows side of the license practically useless--the version of Windows you have likely works just fine for what you use it, and chances are pretty good you already have XP home, if not pro! Luckily, the MS Office and VStudio, tmk, are full versions, so it's not as useless. But whatever you got with your computer is probably just fine and works for you (nice for Microsoft if you have a competitor of theirs!) Finally, the academic prices are already dirt-cheap (relatively speaking). I don't think the MS site license is really very useful in terms of cheapening software acquisition costs!
Finally, you cannot keep the license if you don't graduate. That's right; if you quit for a while or if you're kicked out, you lose your license. Not nearly as sweet a deal as the academic price, now is it?
There are other problems with it from the university side, including problems if they ever want to stop paying Microsoft because maybe they want to standardize on Keynote or OpenOffice or something (long, expensive audit there!), but these are most of the immediately visible student-side problems.
C'est bon. No problem. I got a little impassioned myself. ;)
Much better than my meagre illustration. Bravo. It even makes a great sig:
See, now I'm sad. Because up until this point, we were having a great conversation. And now you've gone sarcastic and soured the whole batch of milk. "Dark forces" indeed.
What "socialist and impossible vision" am I talking about? I BLOODY WELL AGREED WITH YOU THAT PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT ARE GENERALLY ON TRACK. Unless you were referring to copyrights and patents as socialist (which they are in a way, since in a truly free economy, plays and such are free for all to copy, with no restrictions).
Again, where did I claim that you could not get paid for the programs you produce?
NEXT TIME YOU REPLY, PLEASE AT LEAST BE CONSIDERATE ENOUGH TO READ THE POST. Crumbs. Now I've done got my panties in a twist.
[END OF THREAD] *ZOT*
Very true, and that is a hole in the example itself, but not in the underlying concept. I believe that the point--merely because it is profitable to inhibit natural abilities is not sufficient proof of the exercise the natural ability being theft (let alone immoral). Both of us could name other examples of bad business models that don't need propping up via legislation. ;) [maybe this point wasn't clear because of my lack of proper proofreading.]
"Rights" is a very vague word here, as I discussed previously. For example, in this context, the creator of a work certainly has some rights, e.g. "bragging rights". Nobody can really take those away. However, to turn the question around and restate it: why should the creator of an idea be allowed to prevent others' free exercise of their natural abilities (here, copying)?
Again, the word "theft" isn't applicable here. What you're saying is that you won't release your ideas unless you can prevent other people from exercising their natural abilities (which is limiting their freedom). More correctly, you're saying:
That is the correct statement. If someone copies your idea, you still have the idea and may implement it. This is patently not true in the case of theft--you no longer have an item which you can sell or use! It's just that, with ideas, others can also implement them and potentially derive profit from their competing implementation. I also would wager that this blanket statement isn't always true. I bet that if you, for example, came up with a great idea to, say, end terrorism or world hunger, you'd probably release it to the world in the interest of the greater good.
It is worth noting that I also would rather not let my ideas (computer code, in this case) simply be used as others wish. Well, that's not true. I don't mind them using some code pretty much as they please. I release that code under the BSD license. With other code, I think that the idea is good enough to warrant people having to give back to me, and I publish that under the GPL and LGPL. It is somewhat selfish, yes. Were we all complete humanitarians, capitalism would collapse and we'd all live in nirvana, each serving each others' needs. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon. ;)
However, that last paragraph is, at best, tangential. The core of what I'm saying is that, when you boil it down, copyright infringement is not theft. It shares some similarities with theft, but copyright is entirely artificial, created for the hope of greater good (whether it achieves this in its current form is a debate for another day ;), whereas theft is natural (due to the fact that there can only be one of any particular item). Copyright violation and theft violation are both illegal, however, and arguably immoral (theft especially). Copyright's existance is based on the idea that we (the government) will prevent people from exercising their natural ability to copy an idea or work for a limited time, in order to allow the creators the ability to gain additional profit from and/or control their works for this limit
Dangit, that's not even a sentence! I'm really on a roll with this proofreading thing this morning. That should read:
Very true. I shouldn't have thrown that line in there at the end. I just kind of tacked it on quickly and hit "submit" and, in hindsight, it was a stupid thing to do, as it totally distracted from the point I was trying to make. :)
Merely depriving someone of profit that they would have were people able to exercise their natural abilities (better word? Your last point is merely a semantic argument really, that I'll address later). For instance, someone could construct a business model based on people paying you for air, but both you and I would agree that this hypothetical person is a fool. One could even pass legislation providing ownership to air like one can own land, thus enabling such a business model (and, in fact, it might even make sense in some situations (artificial environments, for example, like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)). However, both you and I would likely agree that (at least here on earth), in the absence of such artificial barriers to air access, the person is a fool, and that legislation giving air "ownership" is not in the general good! Thus, with this counterexample, I think I've shown that providing additional profit by prohibiting natural abilities is not a good test of whether something is "theft" (or even moral, I'd argue).
True. Depriving someone of property is also an action one can naturally make with no prohibition. However, due to the physical nature of it, it is quite obviously wrong (although you can forgo your possession of something for a time by, for example, lending it to someone; borrowing is also not theft, though it does deprive them of their possession). Well, you're half-right anyway, from my view. You have natural abilities (e.g. copying and breathing) regardless of whether you're exercising them. And people can prevent you from exercising these abilities by force (the ultimate backing of law). "Rights" are very hazy, I agree. Is the "abilities" nomenclature better?It is often (not universally), however, illegal to copy a recording (or book or play manuscript or perform a musical (within the copyright's lifetime, of course), etc.). The reason for this is that various governments of the world, acting as a proxy for the people they govern, have decided that, while naturally one can copy an idea or collection of words and symbols without restriction, in the interests of the greater good, there should be an artificial barrier to copying said ideas, to allow the creator of those ideas to have an artificial monopoly on the copying of those ideas. This monopoly exists for a limited time, so as to prevent the artificial barrier itself from inhibiting creativity (via preventing unanticipated/unauthorized derivative works). So, effectively, the natural ability to copy any idea is forestalled until a later date, in the interest of allowing the artist to collect a living off of his or her creativity, in the hopes that this artist will be able to create more art. So, in essence, copyright is a balance between the natural right to copy and the desire to encourate creative works by making them themselves profitable and offering the art producer control over how their art is used for a time (the whole point of the GPL and other FOSS code licenses).
The morality question is much thornier. On the one side, prohibiting a natural right (i.e. copying an idea) is balanced against the hope of encouraging creativity in areas which, under a totally laissez-faire economy, would be possibly less productive (since, for example, the artist would need to support their work via other means, or may not get started at all). Additionally, if you hold copying, say, a book to be immoral now, is it still imooral after the copyright has expired (an arguably arbitrary date)? Finally, if you take it to the extreme, you copy a book to get it into your brain (like reading a play is a copy into the audience's brains), then letting someone borrow your book or reading a book from a library is immoral!
In short, copyright violation is not theft. It's so very much more complicated than simply calling it "theft", since the original owner isn't deprived of anything!
I smell a sitcom!!!!
So, in conclusion, generally sex is not free when you account for the entire TCI!
So actually, the Digital Restrictions being Managed by Apple, MSFT, and the record and movie houses is leveled directly at you, not the black marketeer.
I wonder why HP, Dell, and others went with Microsoft's OS instead of PalmOS for their PDAs. Was Palm not licensing their OS yet?
If anything (IMHO), Microsoft has done the most to hamper development in this field, with the majority of tablets released after Microsoft's entry being either underpowered, over-priced laptops with a swivel screen or (a little better) underpowered, over-priced laptops with a built-in screen. A few holdouts remain, such as the PepperPad (honestly looks pretty good to me, though I'd like faster USB and wireless and a bigger, higher-res screen) and various niche devices such as Hitachi's VisionPlate (from what I can tell; unfortunately not for sale to the mere mortal such as myself).
I should have more correctly stated that they wouldn't let me get a laptop with no OS (or with DR-DOS); it was XP Home or Pro or no sale. This is counter to your claim that they did offer notebooks sans OS. Please provide links; I'd be very interested in buying such a notebook (as a home user, note; were I to buy 50 pcs, things might well be different). It need not come with Linux; I just don't need yet another Windows license I'm not gonna use.
Please note, however, that if you do log in as root, particularly if you browse around on the 'net and use irc and chat and email, that our crack Geek Emergency Rapid Clue Repsonse Squad will be dispatched to your location and will be beating you soundly with Big Foam Cluebats until you Learn. So you do so at your own risk. ;)
Regardless, the behaviour the poster described (not verified it personally) where the site doesn't even come up in a usable state is simply miserable programming.
While I fully believe that they sell servers with Linux pre-installed, I've never had them let me buy a notebook with Linux.