Yeah but it's not free (as in speech) and that is one of his requirements. It's one thing to pick a tool because it's a good one, that does almost what you think it should do. However, he has requirements that specify in stone what he requires, and sorry, but nothing exists that would fill them. Else, he wouldn't be creating a new one.
Blah, blah, I know what you going to say. "What about KDE?". Well that is linked to libraries (Qt) that aren't technically Free Software. I'm not worried about Qt pulling out, because of this agreement. Regardless of your opinion about which license suits your requirements, the BSD is not considered Free Software(Tm) and therefore again, would never meet his requirements.
I have no idea what code reuse has to do with a fundamental flaw of Unix either. The fact that code isn't reused is a problem with the coordination of the programmers, it doesn't have much to do with unix itself. You can reuse code all day in Unix if you wanted. There are no differences that make the Windows OS a better model for code reuse except for the fact that code, and subsystems are provided are easy to use, and standard.
So is Miguel saying that making your code open, and allowing people access to the API's to make a new window manager, or print subsystem is a fundamental flaw in the design of an OS? I thought he was a Free Software Programmer?
The DMCA clearly states that reverse engineering is an exemption to the rule that you cannot circumvent a technological measure. I keep hearing over and over that it's bad because you can't distrubute the product of your efforts. Blah, blah, here is what it says damnit. Those people are wrong.
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Sounds bad eh, read the rest of it. Here are the exemptions that are relevant to this story...
`(d) EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS- [...] `(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) [...] `(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- [...]
It even says right in there that you can distribute your findings. I mean really, it's just a draft of copyright law specific to advanced technology. If someone can find me a specific line in there that states why it's a bad thing, I'll be happy to concede.
What's bad is that once it's been proven that you have circumvented a technological measure you have to prove in court that you were exempt. If the DeCSS author had kept detailed records of his intent and methods and archived them he could have avoided this whole mess.
Here is Sec. 1201 of the DMCA tell me where it doesn't allow for fair use. I really want to know.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but a plan 9 environment is typically more than one physical machine connected in a distrubuted fashion to appear as one machine. For instance, the plan9 website may be using 9 dual processor x86 used for processor cycles, 2 x86 machines with tons of disk space, and 2 SPARC machines that handle the "file serving" of network connections out to the internet, with an SGI MIPS machine to use as a terminal. They all act as one, some of the concepts, of the 9p protocol may be based on client/server technique but to you as a user of the system it would not be directly apparent. Even when you use ftp in Plan 9 you are just mounting a directory with an "ftp fs" filesystem which acts as a translator which logs you in and shows the files, but otherwise it's transparent to you as a user who cd's into and does an ls to see the contents.
You are correct that it is designed to use file servers, but not in the same sense that you are thinking. All the drivers, and services are in a sense "file servers". In that they export a hierarchial filesystem, which all communicate thru the 9p protocol.
So it's not going to look like a file share that you would see with NFS or with SMB (i.e. the typical client/server diskless node clusters), it'll be transparent and distributed, where the system can use say a cpu "file service" which is distrubuted transparently from say 3 different serving hosts for whatever task. It also doesn't have the idea of a tty "driver" in kernel space either, it's a user level file service. So when you logged on to play quake you would essentially be interfacing with a user space OpenGL implementation with a setup that you configured for whatever access point you are at (or allowed by the administrator).
I'm still a little sketchy about the details, so that may not be completely correct, but that is the basic jist.
It supports only a small amount of hardware, but I found it easy to install after digging around in my box to get the right stuff. Actually it does use a windowing system that basically acts as a filesystem. All the windows and processes communicate with eachother thru files. When you start the "rio" server you actually just mounting/mnt/wsys (as well as/dev). All the control of services, such as mouse and control of applications and windows is done thru files as well. It does seem a bit slower, but I only installed it standalone which isn't recommended or intended. If I set up three boxes for the CPU service, 2 for the file services and 1 for the networking servs I'm sure it would *haul ass*. It also uses this interesting method of process communication called plumbing which is file based.
As for porting GNOME, Perl and Python, as you were saying, I think that's a step in the wrong direction. GTK+ relies on X, and though you could port X to Plan 9, why would you want to?! All the services that X provides could be easily mimiced using some file based "translators", which I'm sure would be a much more concise and transparent environment to understand, code and be productive in. I think getting a lot of the GNU software may prove difficult (as well as pointless), as Plan 9 uses a dialect of C (and some other way cool distubuted languages) which has some major differences. For instance you can't use a lot of the preprocessor directives such as #if, which I know are prolifically used in programs such as bash (and GNOME/GTK software).
Though it would be relatively straight forward to do and I'm sure it will be done, I for one don't need a "UNIX compatibility layer" over Plan 9. All it needs is a more sophisticated OE, and I think I'm at home. Time to go to the used somputer store and buy a 10 pack of old pentium 200's and a 100mbs lan.:-)
He's not setting precedence. There is plenty of precedent where people/corporations who break the law, in business or otherwise get some of the "freedom to innovate" taken away.
The minute slashdot becomes cold and clinical ( ie CNN ) is the day I stop coming here.
So if you do see a story that's cold and clinical, within that minute it will seem like a day before never coming back? Or will you still come for the rest of the day after seeing something cold and clinical that minute, and then never come back?
If you've ever supported a Desktop, or user level UNIX environment, you'll know really quick why they don't want you to have root on the machine. If was going to provide software support for all of these machines, I wouldn't give the users root either. Especially if they can do most of the administration thru the web front end, maybe with a little help from sudo or something.
Also, you can just boot it into single user mode and get root if you need it...;-)
I really have no idea what is so holy about space travel that we can't allow corporations subsidize more of it's research. I know a lot of people think space exploration is a waste of tax payers money. Thus a logical progression is to use the private-sector, which has much more funds, and a lot of less obligation to spend it "wisely". If you remember correctly, ARPAnet was a government based project, and we let the private sector dig in and create cool and innovate ways to make profit and now look what we have... the internet (Of course when I say "private-sector" I mean the porn industry). I guarantee if corporations are given the incentive and means to explore methods of generating profit with a space travel as a medium, it will be common place with 20 years, and we will have a much wider selection of space-porn which is what we all really want, isn't it?
Not necessarily true. I was an 18 year old with a GED, but bought myself a linux CD, got A+ certifed and did so well on a technical interview for a UNIX admin position I got hired. Now 2 years later after teaching myself programming while at work I have the skills companies are really looking for, not theoretical ones, and I'm making a few times as much as I started with. Plus, it only took me 2 years, instead of 6;-). People that do well on job pretests, technical interviews and are experienced have a whole hell of a lot more chance of getting a position than a person that aren't, but have a degree. It's also important to read up on interviewing techniques and resume writing, as well as corporate etiquette and procedure. Really the only barrier to getting a job without a degree is that the people that are hiring you had to get a degree and they don't think it's fair that you didn't have to get one and they did;-P.
An added bonus to skipping this step is a company will pay for your schooling and other certificates, which is a plus.
If it's money, learn the basics and then go into management, you'll make twice the money without all the headaches.
AHAH! So that's where all the headaches are coming from! Here I was thinking it was management with only basic skills making misinformed decisions, when it was actually just the "law of convservation of headaches".
Don't you think that maybe all we're doing it prolonging the suffering of those who just want to move on with their lives and heal?
For one thing bub, how can you move on and heal when the problem isn't over yet. Haven't you been watching the news lately? These shootings are happening over and over. So your solution? Your solution seems to be that if we forget what is going on, and for the people involved to "move on with their lives and heal..." everything will be fine, is hogwash. How can you have time to recover from a bullet wound when you are still being shot at.
But to use someone else's pain and suffering to make yourself feel better - to diefy the SHOOTERS as being the victims
In case you haven't read it, a lot of this book is about what has happened to the "geeks" (or whatever you wanted to call them) AFTER the shootings. It doesn't attempt to diefy the shooters, it is showing the pain in which children that are not normal are being subjected too by a frightened anti-geekist sentiment.
And what is wrong with trying to understand the shooters mindset, or showing relation with thier painful environment with other accounts. You seem to be in denial about the whole thing, so I'll be the one to say it. Maybe these children were so tortured by people like YOU. People that would prefer to forget about painful events or never have understanding of the events in the first place that they eventually did the only thing left which would give them the satisfaction of feeling like thier own person. Maybe thier sickness, and hate was simply a subconscious cry for understanding, or a cry for reform. Maybe even these children were once *GASP* good people, we wouldn't want to think about that now would we. Shocking, we might not allow someone to hate them, or heck we might even learn from them, or on some strange world we may even one day FORGIVE them. These are ideas, don't they seem sickening, but at least I gave them a moment of reflection.
One of my favorite sayings: You can kick a dog til he does one of two things, 1) roll over and die, or 2) get up and take your leg off. M$ has been kicking a lot of smaller, all but helpless dogs, but I think this time that they've made a mistake and kicked one of the baddest pit bulls ever.....heck why stop at the leg.
Agreed. I remember Bill Gates say something about how he recognized that somebody, somewhere could invent a technology in thier garage that could completely change the face of computing, and usurp Microsofts hold on computing. In his manic attempts at victory, and zealous view that he knows what is best for the world, he has overlooked that attempting to fight the standards is his moira. Especially since it is being reinforced by a community of millions of free software users, who believe what they are doing is the right thing to do, not just the most profitable, and have an almost fanatical moral obligation to do so. It will be even more difficult to sway this force, as it's intangible and an everchanging entity. You can take on one of us, or bring a development team to court, but you can't stop the movement en toto. Microsoft thrived in a world of software in which freedom was irrelavent, and software was a luxury. Now it seems to me that the amount of quality software that is being produced that states in it's license that using it is a right, not a privalege, has become great enough to make the old way of doing things a little too much to swallow. I don't believe that selling software is inherently wrong, but I do believe that you have an obligation, ethically as well as legally to allow certain rights to your users. Microsoft, as do a slew of other companies do not get this, and this will be thier downfall.
He undershot when he said it would be a technology that would be more revolutionary therefor profitable, it has now become matter of basic rights and thus human nature. A new view of computing rather than a new type of computing.
Java on web pages was a stupid, stupid idea. Java as a non-GUI, server side solution is a viable idea. Just because org.lame.StupidApplet is slow in your browser is no reason to count out a nice language.
I've still noticed that sites using jsp are still slightly sluggish when compared to other types of server side (insert internet service here) applications. I know, I know it also depends on the programmer and the jre, but I'd say it's usually a good bet that it will suck...
I'm sure there are good java apps, I've just never seen one.
Thinkgeek selling the books slashdot is featuring just doesn't feel right to me. It's a great idea, but, I guess anytime people I trust (like slashdot) have multiple reasons for helping me (even if it is just by providing information) it bothers me.
Slashdot's authors, even before they started working for Andover, made it completely apparent they were looking for sponsers, and monetary support. Just because they make a blatant promotion on thier site for ThinkGeek doesn't mean they aren't to be trusted, that's how this site stays up dude.
No offense but if you are looking for a completely non-promotional news site, you've come to the wrong place.
Re:You might be able to use the DMCA, anyway...
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 3
They allow copyright owners to restrict the mere running of a program--but only if some sort of hard-to-bypass license manager or access control enforces the restrictions. The freedom of free software means that even if we did put such artificial restriction into a program, the user could easily bypass them--and that's a good thing! But it means that new legal power is not available for use for copyleft.
It's all in the interpretation of the DMCA. In fact there are provisions already in place within the very sections that prohibit "circumventing a technological measure", that take into account 'fair use' when refferring to a users freedom...
For example: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Lower there are provisions to allow the copying of these works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes; etc in sections C.
In fact in section (f) which you don't really hear about that often because people are yelling about how evil the DMCA is, it says:
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The DMCA seems like a reasonable and fair document if you actually read it, it *already* takes into account most of the things people mercilessly bash it for not having. It seems like from what I've read users still have the right to crack software they have lawfully purchased and I see nothing wrong with having to pay for a product. I'm not really sure if giving someone a copy of software is fair use though, if you let someone borrow a book you no longer have the book, software can be reproduced indefinately with exact copies.
Wasn't it a bad thing when Microsoft decided that people needed the latest version of Explorer to access and run some of their software?
Last time I heard Netscape Corp isn't a monopoly. The "bad thing" you are referring too is breaking anti-trust law.
Now Netscape doesn't want Mozilla to be just a browser but a set of tools - and have applications written specifically for and requiring Mozilla.I do realize that badmouthing the big 'ol opensource project is wrong, but it seems to me that they're trying to work the same kind of muscle as Microsoft was except that everybody loves Mozilla. (except for that disappointing interface)
Pfft, last time I checked they, as does every other company, have the right to work these muscles. Creating something that works with something else isn't inherently a bad thing. Only when you use illegal tactics to gain monopoly status, then use your monopoly status to force others out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but it's not free (as in speech) and that is one of his requirements. It's one thing to pick a tool because it's a good one, that does almost what you think it should do. However, he has requirements that specify in stone what he requires, and sorry, but nothing exists that would fill them. Else, he wouldn't be creating a new one.
Blah, blah, I know what you going to say. "What about KDE?". Well that is linked to libraries (Qt) that aren't technically Free Software. I'm not worried about Qt pulling out, because of this agreement. Regardless of your opinion about which license suits your requirements, the BSD is not considered Free Software(Tm) and therefore again, would never meet his requirements.
I have no idea what code reuse has to do with a fundamental flaw of Unix either. The fact that code isn't reused is a problem with the coordination of the programmers, it doesn't have much to do with unix itself. You can reuse code all day in Unix if you wanted. There are no differences that make the Windows OS a better model for code reuse except for the fact that code, and subsystems are provided are easy to use, and standard.
So is Miguel saying that making your code open, and allowing people access to the API's to make a new window manager, or print subsystem is a fundamental flaw in the design of an OS? I thought he was a Free Software Programmer?
There is already a LVM for linux coming out with kernel version 2.4. There is also a version you can compile into linux as a patch I believe.
It even replicates the exact functionality of LVM for AIX and HPUX, from the opengroup.
The DMCA clearly states that reverse engineering is an exemption to the rule that you cannot circumvent a technological measure. I keep hearing over and over that it's bad because you can't distrubute the product of your efforts. Blah, blah, here is what it says damnit. Those people are wrong.
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Sounds bad eh, read the rest of it. Here are the exemptions that are relevant to this story...
`(d) EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS- [...]
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) [...]
`(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- [...]
It even says right in there that you can distribute your findings. I mean really, it's just a draft of copyright law specific to advanced technology. If someone can find me a specific line in there that states why it's a bad thing, I'll be happy to concede.
What's bad is that once it's been proven that you have circumvented a technological measure you have to prove in court that you were exempt. If the DeCSS author had kept detailed records of his intent and methods and archived them he could have avoided this whole mess.
Here is Sec. 1201 of the DMCA tell me where it doesn't allow for fair use. I really want to know.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but a plan 9 environment is typically more than one physical machine connected in a distrubuted fashion to appear as one machine. For instance, the plan9 website may be using 9 dual processor x86 used for processor cycles, 2 x86 machines with tons of disk space, and 2 SPARC machines that handle the "file serving" of network connections out to the internet, with an SGI MIPS machine to use as a terminal. They all act as one, some of the concepts, of the 9p protocol may be based on client/server technique but to you as a user of the system it would not be directly apparent. Even when you use ftp in Plan 9 you are just mounting a directory with an "ftp fs" filesystem which acts as a translator which logs you in and shows the files, but otherwise it's transparent to you as a user who cd's into and does an ls to see the contents.
You are correct that it is designed to use file servers, but not in the same sense that you are thinking. All the drivers, and services are in a sense "file servers". In that they export a hierarchial filesystem, which all communicate thru the 9p protocol.
So it's not going to look like a file share that you would see with NFS or with SMB (i.e. the typical client/server diskless node clusters), it'll be transparent and distributed, where the system can use say a cpu "file service" which is distrubuted transparently from say 3 different serving hosts for whatever task. It also doesn't have the idea of a tty "driver" in kernel space either, it's a user level file service. So when you logged on to play quake you would essentially be interfacing with a user space OpenGL implementation with a setup that you configured for whatever access point you are at (or allowed by the administrator).
I'm still a little sketchy about the details, so that may not be completely correct, but that is the basic jist.
It supports only a small amount of hardware, but I found it easy to install after digging around in my box to get the right stuff. Actually it does use a windowing system that basically acts as a filesystem. All the windows and processes communicate with eachother thru files. When you start the "rio" server you actually just mounting /mnt/wsys (as well as /dev). All the control of services, such as mouse and control of applications and windows is done thru files as well. It does seem a bit slower, but I only installed it standalone which isn't recommended or intended. If I set up three boxes for the CPU service, 2 for the file services and 1 for the networking servs I'm sure it would *haul ass*. It also uses this interesting method of process communication called plumbing which is file based.
:-)
As for porting GNOME, Perl and Python, as you were saying, I think that's a step in the wrong direction. GTK+ relies on X, and though you could port X to Plan 9, why would you want to?! All the services that X provides could be easily mimiced using some file based "translators", which I'm sure would be a much more concise and transparent environment to understand, code and be productive in. I think getting a lot of the GNU software may prove difficult (as well as pointless), as Plan 9 uses a dialect of C (and some other way cool distubuted languages) which has some major differences. For instance you can't use a lot of the preprocessor directives such as #if, which I know are prolifically used in programs such as bash (and GNOME/GTK software).
Though it would be relatively straight forward to do and I'm sure it will be done, I for one don't need a "UNIX compatibility layer" over Plan 9. All it needs is a more sophisticated OE, and I think I'm at home. Time to go to the used somputer store and buy a 10 pack of old pentium 200's and a 100mbs lan.
He's not setting precedence. There is plenty of precedent where people/corporations who break the law, in business or otherwise get some of the "freedom to innovate" taken away.
Just like a convict can't purchase a firearm...
The minute slashdot becomes cold and clinical ( ie CNN ) is the day I stop coming here.
So if you do see a story that's cold and clinical, within that minute it will seem like a day before never coming back? Or will you still come for the rest of the day after seeing something cold and clinical that minute, and then never come back?
(;;)
Segmentation fault.
If you've ever supported a Desktop, or user level UNIX environment, you'll know really quick why they don't want you to have root on the machine. If was going to provide software support for all of these machines, I wouldn't give the users root either. Especially if they can do most of the administration thru the web front end, maybe with a little help from sudo or something.
;-)
Also, you can just boot it into single user mode and get root if you need it...
I really have no idea what is so holy about space travel that we can't allow corporations subsidize more of it's research. I know a lot of people think space exploration is a waste of tax payers money. Thus a logical progression is to use the private-sector, which has much more funds, and a lot of less obligation to spend it "wisely". If you remember correctly, ARPAnet was a government based project, and we let the private sector dig in and create cool and innovate ways to make profit and now look what we have... the internet (Of course when I say "private-sector" I mean the porn industry). I guarantee if corporations are given the incentive and means to explore methods of generating profit with a space travel as a medium, it will be common place with 20 years, and we will have a much wider selection of space-porn which is what we all really want, isn't it?
Not necessarily true. I was an 18 year old with a GED, but bought myself a linux CD, got A+ certifed and did so well on a technical interview for a UNIX admin position I got hired. Now 2 years later after teaching myself programming while at work I have the skills companies are really looking for, not theoretical ones, and I'm making a few times as much as I started with. Plus, it only took me 2 years, instead of 6 ;-). People that do well on job pretests, technical interviews and are experienced have a whole hell of a lot more chance of getting a position than a person that aren't, but have a degree. It's also important to read up on interviewing techniques and resume writing, as well as corporate etiquette and procedure. Really the only barrier to getting a job without a degree is that the people that are hiring you had to get a degree and they don't think it's fair that you didn't have to get one and they did ;-P.
An added bonus to skipping this step is a company will pay for your schooling and other certificates, which is a plus.
If it's money, learn the basics and then go into management, you'll make twice the money without all the headaches.
AHAH! So that's where all the headaches are coming from! Here I was thinking it was management with only basic skills making misinformed decisions, when it was actually just the "law of convservation of headaches".
It'll also teach me to use the back button. I just instinctively clicked back when I was staring at posting and it did it again.
;-)
Doh!
All in all, pretty damn funny, but I changed my passwd just the same.
Damn it! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Time to change my passwd I guess too, huh? fucker.
When did AMD start making good old fashioned gypsy wine? ::slurp:: *hiccup* I gonna gimme somma dat, hippie wine. ::bumps into desk::
Don't you think that maybe all we're doing it prolonging the suffering of those who just want to move on with their lives and heal?
For one thing bub, how can you move on and heal when the problem isn't over yet. Haven't you been watching the news lately? These shootings are happening over and over. So your solution? Your solution seems to be that if we forget what is going on, and for the people involved to "move on with their lives and heal..." everything will be fine, is hogwash. How can you have time to recover from a bullet wound when you are still being shot at.
But to use someone else's pain and suffering to make yourself feel better - to diefy the SHOOTERS as being the victims
In case you haven't read it, a lot of this book is about what has happened to the "geeks" (or whatever you wanted to call them) AFTER the shootings. It doesn't attempt to diefy the shooters, it is showing the pain in which children that are not normal are being subjected too by a frightened anti-geekist sentiment.
And what is wrong with trying to understand the shooters mindset, or showing relation with thier painful environment with other accounts. You seem to be in denial about the whole thing, so I'll be the one to say it. Maybe these children were so tortured by people like YOU. People that would prefer to forget about painful events or never have understanding of the events in the first place that they eventually did the only thing left which would give them the satisfaction of feeling like thier own person. Maybe thier sickness, and hate was simply a subconscious cry for understanding, or a cry for reform. Maybe even these children were once *GASP* good people, we wouldn't want to think about that now would we. Shocking, we might not allow someone to hate them, or heck we might even learn from them, or on some strange world we may even one day FORGIVE them. These are ideas, don't they seem sickening, but at least I gave them a moment of reflection.
Better yet, a button right in plain view when posting that states whether or not you would allow that post to allow said actions.
One of my favorite sayings: You can kick a dog til he does one of two things, 1) roll over and die, or 2) get up and take your leg off. M$ has been kicking a lot of smaller, all but helpless dogs, but I think this time that they've made a mistake and kicked one of the baddest pit bulls ever.....heck why stop at the leg.
Agreed. I remember Bill Gates say something about how he recognized that somebody, somewhere could invent a technology in thier garage that could completely change the face of computing, and usurp Microsofts hold on computing. In his manic attempts at victory, and zealous view that he knows what is best for the world, he has overlooked that attempting to fight the standards is his moira. Especially since it is being reinforced by a community of millions of free software users, who believe what they are doing is the right thing to do, not just the most profitable, and have an almost fanatical moral obligation to do so. It will be even more difficult to sway this force, as it's intangible and an everchanging entity. You can take on one of us, or bring a development team to court, but you can't stop the movement en toto. Microsoft thrived in a world of software in which freedom was irrelavent, and software was a luxury. Now it seems to me that the amount of quality software that is being produced that states in it's license that using it is a right, not a privalege, has become great enough to make the old way of doing things a little too much to swallow. I don't believe that selling software is inherently wrong, but I do believe that you have an obligation, ethically as well as legally to allow certain rights to your users. Microsoft, as do a slew of other companies do not get this, and this will be thier downfall.
He undershot when he said it would be a technology that would be more revolutionary therefor profitable, it has now become matter of basic rights and thus human nature. A new view of computing rather than a new type of computing.
Java on web pages was a stupid, stupid idea. Java as a non-GUI, server side solution is a viable idea. Just because org.lame.StupidApplet is slow in your browser is no reason to count out a nice language.
I've still noticed that sites using jsp are still slightly sluggish when compared to other types of server side (insert internet service here) applications. I know, I know it also depends on the programmer and the jre, but I'd say it's usually a good bet that it will suck...
I'm sure there are good java apps, I've just never seen one.
Thinkgeek selling the books slashdot is featuring just doesn't feel right to me. It's a great idea, but, I guess anytime people I trust (like slashdot) have multiple reasons for helping me (even if it is just by providing information) it bothers me.
Slashdot's authors, even before they started working for Andover, made it completely apparent they were looking for sponsers, and monetary support. Just because they make a blatant promotion on thier site for ThinkGeek doesn't mean they aren't to be trusted, that's how this site stays up dude.
No offense but if you are looking for a completely non-promotional news site, you've come to the wrong place.
They allow copyright owners to restrict the mere running of a program--but only if some sort of hard-to-bypass license manager or access control enforces the restrictions. The freedom of free software means that even if we did put such artificial restriction into a program, the user could easily bypass them--and that's a good thing! But it means that new legal power is not available for use for copyleft.
It's all in the interpretation of the DMCA. In fact there are provisions already in place within the very sections that prohibit "circumventing a technological measure", that take into account 'fair use' when refferring to a users freedom...
For example: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Lower there are provisions to allow the copying of these works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes; etc in sections C.
In fact in section (f) which you don't really hear about that often because people are yelling about how evil the DMCA is, it says:
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The DMCA seems like a reasonable and fair document if you actually read it, it *already* takes into account most of the things people mercilessly bash it for not having. It seems like from what I've read users still have the right to crack software they have lawfully purchased and I see nothing wrong with having to pay for a product. I'm not really sure if giving someone a copy of software is fair use though, if you let someone borrow a book you no longer have the book, software can be reproduced indefinately with exact copies.
Anyway here are the offending sections.
Wasn't it a bad thing when Microsoft decided that people needed the latest version of Explorer to access and run some of their software?
Last time I heard Netscape Corp isn't a monopoly. The "bad thing" you are referring too is breaking anti-trust law.
Now Netscape doesn't want Mozilla to be just a browser but a set of tools - and have applications written specifically for and requiring Mozilla.I do realize that badmouthing the big 'ol opensource project is wrong, but it seems to me that they're trying to work the same kind of muscle as Microsoft was except that everybody loves Mozilla. (except for that disappointing interface)
Pfft, last time I checked they, as does every other company, have the right to work these muscles. Creating something that works with something else isn't inherently a bad thing. Only when you use illegal tactics to gain monopoly status, then use your monopoly status to force others out of business.
When I try to run this post I get the following error:
Search pattern not terminated at post.pl line 6.
Can somebody please help me, thanks in advance