"clicking the button / checking the box that says "I Agree" is a pretty dead giveaway that you agreed to it..."
This has never been established in court.
The printing on the box calls it a game and nowhere does it say 'licensed software product'. How exactly is this a software product when it is not labeled as such?
It is sold as a game and there is also a doctrine of merchantablity and fitness for use. If it does not work as a game within the bounds of the law then it is not a valid sale.
If it is not a sale, why does the sign say 'SALE' and why did I get a sales receipt when I bought it?
If I licensed the software, show me the signature on the license agreement or show me how I can agree to a license agreement without signing anything.
The Doctrine of First sale says that when I buy something, it's mine and I don't need to have any sort of permission from the previous owner to use it.
"they'd be forced, by lack of licensing revenue, to stop making consoles all together."
Maybe they need a different approach to the problem. Just because they want to do things in a particular brain-dead, unethical, probably illegal, fashion doesn't mean that everyone else has to acconodate them.
I bet it would be entirely possible for them to come up with a sales model that is ethical and legal and still allows them to make money.
2. You choose an easy target with OSX. Jobs freely admits to ignoring the business market, your issues do not matter to them.
3. You talk about 'UI consistency', and then you talk about how Office, and Only Office, has this new GUI. What about the rest of Windows? Does it have this new GUI? Where is the consistency?
4. How come Microsoft, with all their high-powerd thinking, can't retire an 8-year old operating system? Why is the market forcing them to continue to sell XP?
Microsoft doesn't withhold documentation. They just don't bother writing it in the first place.
When they are forced to provide documentation, they have to sit down and write it!
Their specifications look like they were written by 10000 people in one hour because they just don't see the worth of spending any time on documentation.
Way back in my Windows 3.1 development days, I found Windows bugs that I was only able to work around after consulting with a Microsoft developer that my boss knew from his stint at Microsoft. I learned a bunch of stuff about Windows 3.1 that was not documented anywhere.
Backwards compatibility is okay if you do it right.
The problem is that Microsoft didn't do it right.
Read the VB horror stories. There is no backward compatibility. It's a myth.
Every Windows version is incompatible with the one before it. Every time there is a Windows version upgrade, you have to upgrade your applications, and usually your hardware, too. If by chance something works across an upgrade, it's only because the developers worked furiously behind the scenes to make it so, or it's some kind of crazy miracle.
Most users have no idea what kind of crazy shit developers go through to make their code look good on Windows. It's a shocking waste.
Microsoft today announced a takeover bid for OLPC Inc. Management at OLPC is receptive to the idea and is negotiating a stock price that will ensure that its investors receive a fair value. "This is really the best outcome, because now we are all RICH! FILTHY STINKING RICH!" a company spokesman was quoted as saying.
When I was a wee lad, going to Kiewit during the summer and messing around with DTSS and Basic. They tore the building down a long time ago, which makes me feel even older.
They had DECwriter LA36's (like was used to print the Lions' book), old-fashioned 110 baud teletypes with paper tape readers and punches, and if you were lucky you could get some time on one of the Tektronix vector terminals. They also had some very odd GE printing terminals whose printing looked a lot better than the DECwriters. I was not even s atudent, so I had almost no disk quota. A couple of times I had to punch stuff onto paper tape to clear out some disk space. I wish I still had those paper tapes.
I learned a lot of interesting stuff, but I forgot it all when I got to MIT and started listening to Prof. Sussman.
You have it backwards, ext3 does not journal metadata, XFS does.
"More stable than ReizerFS" is really not saying anything at all. ReiserFS has never been stable. That's why it has never been an option in RedHat or Fedora.
The problem is that ext filesystems are designed to run on small IDE drives, which nobody has anymore. As filesystems get bigger and bigger, XFS performs better than the others. google for benchmarks!
My workstation has RAID 0, with a big fat XFS partition, four SATA drives. I beat the poor machine hard with 3-D applications and it crashes at least once a week thanks to nVidia bugs and abusing VMware on a non-supported kernel. Freezing and defrosting VMware virtual machines involves enormous disk IO and XFS handles it very well. I have no disk errors, no bad blocks, no odd kernel messages, nothing. This machine boots up flawlessly every day and I've never had any kind of problems with XFS recovery, even on horrific kernel panics.
I went with XFS because I had problems recovering from disk errors after crashes with ext3.
Exactly what do you propose replacing XFS with? No other filesystem has its feature set.
I would love to see such a poll, if the size of the filesystem is taken into account in the poll.
It is the filesystem of choice on more than one of my computers. If you are using Raid on your workstation, you should consider XFS. If you have any kind of file server, XFS is the clear choice. If you want to run Apple Calendar Server or any other application that uses xattrs, XFS is really the ONLY way to go on Linux. Do your homework. One would only hope that you have been running Linux long enough to know that popularity contests mean nothing?
google for benchmarks. XFS kicks every other filesystem's butt on clusters and RAID arrays. The feature set is not half bad, either. Built-in quotas, ACLs, xattrs, journaling. SGI has used XFS for years, and XFS filesystems are portable between IRIX and Linux, for the few who care.
Who cares about shrinking partitions? Sounds like a bad idea to me. Disk space is too cheap to have to quibble about such things. I want my filesystems to be optimized for the space that they use now, not the space they used to use.
I have a 5501. It works like a champ. Fedora 8 runs great on it. 500 MHz Geode, 512 MB RAM, 4 x 100 Mb Ethernet, USB, CF, PATA, SATA. The computer uses 5 watts and the SATA drive uses another 2 watts.
You need a "real" computer language for typesetting, which is why they invented Postscript. If TeX had fulfilled its promise, Postscript would not have been necessary.
Your argument is compelling except for the fact that many Oracle customers are pretty clueless and will not program with the excellent rigor that you do. This is compounded by Oracle's overblown security claims, which gives a false sense of security to less skilled developers.
We are not talking about using some kind of framework. We are talking about THE ACTUAL FRAMEWORK. You folks imagine that there is some magic perfect code down there that you just call to parse a date and you forget that it actually has to implemented somewhere. Oracle has been ported to roughly a zillion different platforms. Do you really think they are going to rely on the platform to parse their dates?
You are missing the point of the attack. The validation IS done, but the attack subverts it.
Validating dates, especially international ones, is enormously complex, and the validation process itself is extremely prone to errors and undesired behavior. If you expect all database clients to do full validation of all input data before passing it on to the database, you are going to see some really miserably performing clients, and not a lot of extra security. Each validation step would also have its own points of vulnerability.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a software product. It's a game. Read what it says on the box.
"clicking the button / checking the box that says "I Agree" is a pretty dead giveaway that you agreed to it..."
This has never been established in court.
The printing on the box calls it a game and nowhere does it say 'licensed software product'. How exactly is this a software product when it is not labeled as such?
It is sold as a game and there is also a doctrine of merchantablity and fitness for use. If it does not work as a game within the bounds of the law then it is not a valid sale.
If it is not a sale, why does the sign say 'SALE' and why did I get a sales receipt when I bought it?
If I licensed the software, show me the signature on the license agreement or show me how I can agree to a license agreement without signing anything.
They are not there to solve crime. They are there to make people feel like they have no freedom. After a while it sinks in.
The Doctrine of First sale says that when I buy something, it's mine and I don't need to have any sort of permission from the previous owner to use it.
"they'd be forced, by lack of licensing revenue, to stop making consoles all together."
Maybe they need a different approach to the problem. Just because they want to do things in a particular brain-dead, unethical, probably illegal, fashion doesn't mean that everyone else has to acconodate them.
I bet it would be entirely possible for them to come up with a sales model that is ethical and legal and still allows them to make money.
Since you can only play the game at their whim, what is it that you have actually purchased?
This is more a case of paying something for nothing.
You are right, this guy has been drinking way too much of the kool-aid.
1. Dog food. Is Office 2007 written in .NET?
2. You choose an easy target with OSX. Jobs freely admits to ignoring the business market, your issues do not matter to them.
3. You talk about 'UI consistency', and then you talk about how Office, and Only Office, has this new GUI. What about the rest of Windows? Does it have this new GUI? Where is the consistency?
4. How come Microsoft, with all their high-powerd thinking, can't retire an 8-year old operating system? Why is the market forcing them to continue to sell XP?
"a smart idea to withhold the API documentation."
Microsoft doesn't withhold documentation. They just don't bother writing it in the first place.
When they are forced to provide documentation, they have to sit down and write it!
Their specifications look like they were written by 10000 people in one hour because they just don't see the worth of spending any time on documentation.
Way back in my Windows 3.1 development days, I found Windows bugs that I was only able to work around after consulting with a Microsoft developer that my boss knew from his stint at Microsoft. I learned a bunch of stuff about Windows 3.1 that was not documented anywhere.
Backwards compatibility is okay if you do it right.
The problem is that Microsoft didn't do it right.
Read the VB horror stories. There is no backward compatibility. It's a myth.
Every Windows version is incompatible with the one before it. Every time there is a Windows version upgrade, you have to upgrade your applications, and usually your hardware, too. If by chance something works across an upgrade, it's only because the developers worked furiously behind the scenes to make it so, or it's some kind of crazy miracle.
Most users have no idea what kind of crazy shit developers go through to make their code look good on Windows. It's a shocking waste.
Microsoft today announced a takeover bid for OLPC Inc. Management at OLPC is receptive to the idea and is negotiating a stock price that will ensure that its investors receive a fair value. "This is really the best outcome, because now we are all RICH! FILTHY STINKING RICH!" a company spokesman was quoted as saying.
When I was a wee lad, going to Kiewit during the summer and messing around with DTSS and Basic. They tore the building down a long time ago, which makes me feel even older.
They had DECwriter LA36's (like was used to print the Lions' book), old-fashioned 110 baud teletypes with paper tape readers and punches, and if you were lucky you could get some time on one of the Tektronix vector terminals. They also had some very odd GE printing terminals whose printing looked a lot better than the DECwriters. I was not even s atudent, so I had almost no disk quota. A couple of times I had to punch stuff onto paper tape to clear out some disk space. I wish I still had those paper tapes.
I learned a lot of interesting stuff, but I forgot it all when I got to MIT and started listening to Prof. Sussman.
You have it backwards, ext3 does not journal metadata, XFS does.
"More stable than ReizerFS" is really not saying anything at all. ReiserFS has never been stable. That's why it has never been an option in RedHat or Fedora.
The problem is that ext filesystems are designed to run on small IDE drives, which nobody has anymore. As filesystems get bigger and bigger, XFS performs better than the others. google for benchmarks!
My workstation has RAID 0, with a big fat XFS partition, four SATA drives. I beat the poor machine hard with 3-D applications and it crashes at least once a week thanks to nVidia bugs and abusing VMware on a non-supported kernel. Freezing and defrosting VMware virtual machines involves enormous disk IO and XFS handles it very well. I have no disk errors, no bad blocks, no odd kernel messages, nothing. This machine boots up flawlessly every day and I've never had any kind of problems with XFS recovery, even on horrific kernel panics.
I went with XFS because I had problems recovering from disk errors after crashes with ext3.
Exactly what do you propose replacing XFS with? No other filesystem has its feature set.
I would love to see such a poll, if the size of the filesystem is taken into account in the poll.
It is the filesystem of choice on more than one of my computers. If you are using Raid on your workstation, you should consider XFS. If you have any kind of file server, XFS is the clear choice. If you want to run Apple Calendar Server or any other application that uses xattrs, XFS is really the ONLY way to go on Linux. Do your homework. One would only hope that you have been running Linux long enough to know that popularity contests mean nothing?
google for benchmarks. XFS kicks every other filesystem's butt on clusters and RAID arrays. The feature set is not half bad, either. Built-in quotas, ACLs, xattrs, journaling. SGI has used XFS for years, and XFS filesystems are portable between IRIX and Linux, for the few who care.
Who cares about shrinking partitions? Sounds like a bad idea to me. Disk space is too cheap to have to quibble about such things. I want my filesystems to be optimized for the space that they use now, not the space they used to use.
It's one of the three standard file systems (along with ext2 and ext3) in Fedora 8, one of the most popular distributions. How's that again?
Doesn't even mention XFS.
www.soekris.com
I have a 5501. It works like a champ. Fedora 8 runs great on it. 500 MHz Geode, 512 MB RAM, 4 x 100 Mb Ethernet, USB, CF, PATA, SATA. The computer uses 5 watts and the SATA drive uses another 2 watts.
We Irish had an advanced civilization long ago based on this technology, but then we started drinking the damned stuff...
You need a "real" computer language for typesetting, which is why they invented Postscript. If TeX had fulfilled its promise, Postscript would not have been necessary.
Your argument is compelling except for the fact that many Oracle customers are pretty clueless and will not program with the excellent rigor that you do. This is compounded by Oracle's overblown security claims, which gives a false sense of security to less skilled developers.
We are not talking about using some kind of framework. We are talking about THE ACTUAL FRAMEWORK. You folks imagine that there is some magic perfect code down there that you just call to parse a date and you forget that it actually has to implemented somewhere. Oracle has been ported to roughly a zillion different platforms. Do you really think they are going to rely on the platform to parse their dates?
You are missing the point of the attack. The validation IS done, but the attack subverts it.
Validating dates, especially international ones, is enormously complex, and the validation process itself is extremely prone to errors and undesired behavior. If you expect all database clients to do full validation of all input data before passing it on to the database, you are going to see some really miserably performing clients, and not a lot of extra security. Each validation step would also have its own points of vulnerability.