Can you say repeat? I knew you could. Of course, there's a real article this time, somebody else has written an article about the EULA. Old news, ho-hum, been there, done that, don't care, goodbye.
Re:Tell me what THIS is good for?
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
On the other hand what good is a Miata for or any sports cars for that matter?
The difference is twofold. First, in terms of function, most sports cars (ignoring the Lamborghinis that get 2 MPG) get better mileage than an SUV, and are actually safer, as well (lower center of gravity, less likely to roll, MUCH better reaction time for acceleration, breaking, steering, and so on). Second, as a status symbol, sports cars are at least up front about being phallus replacements. How many idiots do you know that have SUVs or monster full-size pickups, yet never take them off the highway, or haul anything more than junior's bicycle?
But the main problem I have with SUVs is that the moron manufacturers are screwing with Darwin, keeping the SUV owners from getting what they deserve.
Sigh. Some people just didn't read the appellate finding, apparently. From the document:
In sum, for reasons more fully explained below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part the District Court's judgment assessing liability. We vacate in full the Final Judgment emobdying the remedial order and remand the case to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (Page 7, end of Summary)
Specifically, they reversed the DC's judgment that Microsoft violated part 2 of the Sherman Act, or in other words that they didn't illegally attempt to monopolize the internet browser market. They also remanded to the DC the finding that Microsoft violated part 1 of the Sherman Act, or the unlawful tying of the browser to the OS. The only part they did affirm, and this only partially (with the rest reversed, not remanded) was the violation of part 2 of the Sherman Act by using anti-competitive means to maintain it's OS monopoly. To see what exactly they affirm and what they reverse on that, feel free to dig deeper into the decision.
What this means is that the appellate court DID NOT uphold that Microsoft is guilty of defending its monopoly, and in fact actually REVERSED an important decision necessary to the monopolization case. They've also REMANDED the second Sherman violation back to the district court.
I just want true 30fps in theaters! Maybe in an all digital theater... they do shoot some movies on HD video cameras, don't they? Still haven't been in one of them newfangled digital theaters. Seattle has crappy theaters.
Don't I know it! There's no real cutting-edge theaters out here (IMAX doesn't count, as that's not really cutting-edge), though one would expect at least something, what with being a big technology center. Oh well. I guess I'll continue to be happy watching movies at the Bella Botega or Cineplex Odeon (two eastside theaters with stadium seating). As far as better filming processes, the best I've heard of is 32fps. Of course, I'm assuming these get translated down for play in "normal" theaters, because to do otherwise would require a massive layout of cash by theater owners. And we all know that they don't make much money off of anything but the concessions:).
The reason why watching a film on a TV monitor vs watching a film in the theater is because that film is translated from 24fps to 30fps (usually by frame doubling, but I don't know the process well enough to describe it -- search the web. I've seen a good review of progressive scan DVD players that gave a good background to the whole film->video conversion process). And as far as films go, many theaters actually use projection cameras with shutters that open two or three times per frame, rather than once. It doesn't help the fact that there are still only 24 frames in a second, but it does make it seem a bit smoother (making it seem as if there are really 48 or 72 frames, though those are doubled or tripled).
My point precisely. You need more than just a login and a password. You need, at the very least, the database of paid subscriptions, which can reasonably be expected to contain names, addesses, perhaps even payment information.
And also which Passport has no reason to ever see. And why's that? Because Passport is just an authentication mechanism. It tells the MSDN site (or any site that uses Passport, for that matter) who you are. It's then up to MSDN to determine whether or not you're somebody who should get their stuff. In short, people aren't thinking, and going crazy about stuff that's not even happening!
Yes, it's true Passport can hold your payment information for you. However, that's an optional service, and it's highly unlikely it's being forced in this scenario (or any scenario, as it's good to allow for multiple means of payment -- in otherwords, I'm sure that if you wished to use Passport to give MSDN your payment info, you could, but you don't have to do so).
one: A default passport contains nothing but name and login name. There's huge scale for privacy voilation there.
They'll need more info than that to ensure that "people who did not pay cannot get access" see point "two" below...
Why would they need more info from Passport? How simple do you think it is for them to keep a database mapping paid subscriptions to passport IDs on their own servers (not Passport's)? Why must this information come from Passport, when it's clearly site-specific? Come on, man, think these things through!
I expect that people in the not too distant future will say the same thing about various digital artifacts. They'll figure out all sorts of uses for pixelation and compression artifacts and even deliberately introduce them into works that didn't have them in the first place just for their artistic effect.
That future is already here today. The popular web comic Diesel Sweeties uses an intentionally-pixelized style. And there was that guy that rendered historical scenes in a Sims-like format.
Try some common sense, man. A EULA is a contract that can be terminated by either party at any time (note that this doesn't mean that you're absolved of any possible contractual abuse dating from when you were still under the EULA; it just means you can get out of the EULA whenever you please by taking certain steps). To do so, all you have to do is stop using the relevant product (remove it from your computer, possibly return any media like CDs or books). Thus, the phrase you're so intent on interprets to something along the lines of, "If you wish to continue using this SDK, then you're required to upgrade to the final version when it's released and obtain (possibly purchase) a license for said SDK." Obviously, you can opt out of that at any time simply by discontinuing your use of the SDK.
The major difference here is SDK vs Product. While it makes sense to time-expire a beta product, how would you do that with an SDK that's essentially nothing more than a bunch of headers, libs, and docs sitting on your drive? As well, simply not using a product after the expiration date is easily done -- just stop using. But when you're writing against an SDK, the assumption here is that you want to continue using the SDK. The alternative is to not use the SDK anymore. And that's all right, because if you're just evaluating the SDK and decide you don't want to use it, there's no problem (assuming that you really aren't using the SDK anymore). Once you decide that you want to continue using that SDK, though, you need to obtain a copy of the final version and a license to continue using it past the beta period.
SDK != Product. It's FUD to consider the possibility that Microsoft would use such a clause in the XP license, because XP is not an SDK. (The current betas are time-limited, so nothing else would be necessary to "force" an upgrade to RTM when XP ships. And such a clause in a shipping product would be redundant and meaningless).
I often download beta software to see if I might be interested in buying the released product. I regard it as a form of shareware - I get the beta to try out and may, or may not, go for the real deal.
Microsoft's definition of "Beta" is apparently different than yours, which is okay. However, if you want to look at beta software as a form of shareware, consider this -- the clause "you must upgrade to the final version" is the same as a shareware author saying "if you wish to continue using this product after the free evaluation period, you must pay me for a full version". No difference. Microsoft isn't going to force you to use the final version. You certainly have the option to stop using the software. However, if you're working on a product that is using that SDK, and you plan on releasing that product some day (either to users, or to a production server, or whatever), then it's in your best interest to make sure you're using the final version for your product, as beta software inevitably will have problems (hint: it's beta. It's not release quality yet).
They don't have to support anything anyway - read the EULAs.
Right, they don't have to support anything. OF course, it's in their interest to support the beta users, as that's valuable feedback for the final product. Microsoft has a long tradition of supporting developers. Look at the scope of their MSDN project. While that may not be considered active support, it is still support. And requiring MSDN to support Beta 1, and Beta 2, and RC1, and RC2, and the final release version all at the same time is ridiculous. The sane thing to do is to say that when Beta 2 is released, then Beta 1 is no longer supported and you better damned well upgrade. And so on up the ladder to release.
It may not be how you'd support a product, but it's how Microsoft supports a product, and it's been working for 25+ years so far.
Some people do it because they like doing it, not because they are hoping to make millions in the process - a concept many Americans (not very comprehensively educated ones, like most software engineers and developers) seem to be unable to grasp.
I'm not talking about getting rich off of your art. I'm not even talking about maintaining a "comfortable" lifestyle. I'm talking about being able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, and clothes on your back. One would assume (without digging into historical documents, which I don't have time to do right now) that Van Gogh, Beethoven, Mozart, etc were able to at least make a paltry living off of their art, else they'd not have had the chance to make their art.
People talk about wanting to be able to make a living off of doing what they love. Well, if your love is writing software, or writing a novel, or writing/playing music, or painting portraits, or whatever, then you're going to want to be able to live off of the skill you have. The suggestion that nobody should ever have to pay for intellectual property is absurd, because it denies the artists the right to eat food.
While I agree that if not even a single dime could be made off of art, you'd still see artists producing works. However, one must wonder how much better those works would be if that artists were able to concentrate on them full time, rather than after a 9-5 day job.
The SDK in question is a beta SDK. As far as point (i) goes, of course they're going to require the recipient to upgrade to the final version when it's released -- it makes no sense to continue supporting a beta once the gold version exists. And for point (ii), again, this is a beta. If Microsoft makes major changes to the SDK, changes that need more testing than their internal testers can do, then it once again makes sense to require your beta testers to update. On top of that, it also means that when you're supporting a beta SDK, you don't have to support every permutation of that beta, only the latest builds.
Please try to understand what you're talking about, rather than slipping into the Slashdot FUD mode that seems to easy to obtain around here.
Besides, there are still individuals who get duped into paying for information such as operating systems, office suites, and games (take note, gamers). We need a stronger education campaign to battle the FUD-slinging that's currently going around.
That's so much bullshit. The scary part is that you seem to actually believe what you're saying. You're apparently one of those "Information wants to be free" kind of people. While that may be true (the personification of information is pretty dumb, imho, but whatever), information is not created on its own. Somebody (or a number of somebodies) has to do the research or development (or drawing, or writing, or architecting, or...) to create that information, and they deserve to be compensated for their work if they so desire.
Now, let's pick apart games in particular. A game is much more than just the underlying code. It's art (graphical and written/spoken word). To argue that a video game should be freely available is to argue that art, literature, and music should all be freely available, with no compensation for the creators at all. How do you ever expect to have any new art/music/literature/video games if this were to come to pass? None of those categories would simply fall off the face of the earth, but the quantity produced would significantly decrease. And the quality of what's left would even suffer, as it's difficult to dedicate oneself to one's art while working a day job so that one may stay fed and clothed.
It's not FUD to advocate for-pay software (whether you get source with your purchase or not). It's idiocy to advocate otherwise.
when you say 'linux' people know you are talking about the kernel. when you say 'gnu/linux' people know you are talking about the "whole system".
What's so wrong with saying "linux kernel" when you're referring to the linux kernel? Kinda like you'd refer to the "Windows NT kernel", or the "BSD kernel". Not that hard to do.
First of all, I am a graduate from UIUC's CS program. The department is staunchly against student collaboration, and I think that's really the point here. Most instructors I had would give a zero for the first instance of cheating, and failure for the course on the second instance. Practically every MP (UIUC-speak for "programming assignment") was an individual assignment, except for about one or two small group assignments in my entire college career. Most instructors enforce the no collaboration quite strongly, and they have fairly sophisticated methods to detect collaboration.
While it's true in theory (and on paper) that most UIUC instructors are against collaboration, a large number of the "good" ones (imho, as a recent graduate myself) look the other way at the very least. In fact, the only collaboration that is truly frowned upon is using somebody else's code.
I can't even count the number of nights spent in the basement of Grainger or the 4th floor, or in one of the DCL labs, or in Newmark (when I had to work as a lab sitter for EWS) with my group of CS friends, kicking around an MP[1], figuring out what it was asking, and what was needed to successfully complete the MP. Later, each of us would take a crack at his or her own implementation of the solutions we discussed, and then we'd all reconvene for mass debugging sessions, or to help those that got stuck in the code phase. Because the code is yours, and the solutions are arguably "unique enough", there was never any infraction of university policies, yet there was significant collaboration.
The better professors (Jeff Erickson, Sylvian Ray, Jason Zych (is he a professor yet?), Lenny Pitt, even Jean Ponce) would encourage students to attend office hours when they were stuck. Hell, if it weren't for those office hour sessions with Professor Ray, where between three and five of us would sit down and go through the homeworks, I don't think I'd have passed CS384 (Data Acquisition and DSP). And if it weren't for the collaboration of my peers, I'd never have been prepared for the "real world".
Just to make this clear -- collaboration, in and of itself, is not cheating, and the faculty understands this. It's when a group of people all hand in the same code that there's a problem ("Why?", you ask? Because you're not learning anything if you just copy Joe's code, but you will learn if you implement Joe's idea in your own code). In my four years at UIUC, I never once heard of anyone caught for cheating on an MP (at least, not in any of my classes), although I know of one or two people that should've been caught. But those were people who would simply take another's code pretty much verbatim, rather than join a study group and collaborate on solutions.
[1] MP - Machine Problem. UIUC term for programming assignments, though it is also used more broadly, from the strictest of coding assignments to developing circuits and more.
find I'm not really able to get excited about their claim that they're as good as the windoze AUdio 8 format.
It's amazing that you can brush this off so easily when it's apparent that you haven't even heard (or seen, for that matter) what the latest Windows Media formats can do. Try this link if you're at all interested in scoping out the competition (yes, I realize that's an MS press release, but it does have a few good links to examples of content encoded with the new versions). The quality of the streaming video is no less than astounding, and the audio is right up there with it. So while you may not be excited that MP3Pro is as good as the "windoze AUdio 8 format" (as you put it in your oh-so-leet way), you'd do well not to brush this off lightly, either.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the argument, but what's the problem with removing a floppy disk from the drive during a read or write in Windows? As an empirical test, I just did that here. What happened? A message box popped up explaining that the file copy couldn't be completed because there was no disk to copy it to, and then another box popped up saying that the delayed write failed with a list of potential causes (hardware or network, basically). I fail to see the problem. Maybe I should qualify this by saying that I tested on Windows 2000, but that should be pretty much irrelevant (because if you must compare linux to windows, do it properly -- Win9x isn't even in the same league, and was never meant to be).
Currently Corel's WordPerfect is the (more or less) standard office product for the Linux world, and I sort of wonder if Microsoft would be willing to challange that dominance, and perhaps gain a (little) bit of good will from a community that it has otherwise sorely alienated (to say the least).
I think that'd be a no-win situation for Microsoft. On the one hand, if Microsoft doesn't port Office (ie, the status quo), they're blamed for tightly integrating it into the OS, and using their OS muscle to move Office units (neither of which are true, as witnessed by the fact that Office runs natively on the Macintosh, and runs well, and sells well even though Microsoft doesn't own the Mac). On the other hand, if Microsoft does port Office, they'll get called down for "trying to expand their monopoly". Not to mention not being able to recoup their developement costs due to the fact that lots and lots of Linux users are of the mind that everything for Linux should be free (wouldn't surprise me if some thought the hardware should be free as well) (note that's free, not Free, which is another can of worms, and I'll leave that for some other time).
That said, Microsoft's spokespeople have said more than a few times that whether or not they port applications to other platforms is a function of the demand for that application (coupled with profit potential, obviously, but that's why they're a business and not a non-profit organization). If you really want to see Office on Linux, start a letter-writing campaign. Rally everybody you possibly can, give them a well-written form letter expressing the desire to see Office on Linux and the willingness to pay reasonable prices, and bury Redmond under a deluge of requests to see Office/IE/Money/whatever on Linux. I'm sure you'll see some results.
I've been with my company since almost the very beginning, and as such I have a lot of options. They will be worth something if and only if the company gets bought or starts trading publicly. What do I value them at? Nothing.
You might want to keep an eye on your options, all the same. Most companies have option policies that will expire between 3 and 7 years (or so) after complete vesting. It'd be a shame to lose the options (if they're ever worth) anything through simple negligence.
Of course, if your strike price is higher than current market value, there's no point in bothering with the options. Still, it doesn't hurt to keep half an eye on the market, "just in case"
All kidding aside, if you hooked up an external USB hardrive to it, it might run windows off of that. Then it would suck like Billg and Jenna Bush on an illigitimate date. Why waste a perfectly good device with windows?
Just get one of IBM's CF microdrives, and plug it into a CF port.
At least open source software affords users the chance to fix the bugs themselves and then contribute the fixes to the community of users
in a timely fashion. For that, I WOULD certainly be willing to pay a maintenance fee to the authors who contributed to the code.
How many people do you realistically expect to contribute fixes back to a project? One out of every thousand? One out of every ten thousand? One out of every ten? Certainly the ratio depends on the userbase. For instance, "users" of something like gtk (by which I mean the developers using the library) are probably more likely to submit bug fixes than users of StarOffice, for multiple reasons (fewer, more technically-inclined folk using the library, developers vs. Joe Sixpack, complexity of the project, so on).
I'm not denying that it happens. I'm just saying that when most people use that argument, they're being very idealistic. They're applying lessons learned from the linux kernel (for example) to an office suite (for another example). I really doubt the effect would be any greater than that gained from beta programs (which Microsoft actively runs, with great feedback from the beta users).
Oh, and in most cases, the shrinkwrapped software you buy is not beta-quality code. There are exceptions, like the PC gaming industry where deadlines are tight and publishers want a quick ROI, but overall most well-designed commercial applications are of higher quality than what you'll find in ~75% of the freshmeat entries or sourceforge projects.
Do you have any clue how much money a company like Sprint pays for service contracts to vendors like IBM? Lots and lots and lots and lots.
This only works when dealing with B2B contracts. The model falls flat any time you try to live off of service fees in a B2C relationship, because most customers are simply unwilling to pay the necessary fees for service many of them consider (justly or not) useless. Would you pay $500 for a two or three year support contract for Microsoft Office, if Office were given to you for free? Would you even be willing to pay $15/mo for the same thing?
Too many people would answer "no" to those questions. Thus, to make money (allowing you to then make more software and also to be around to support what you've already written), you sell your software (which is your most valuable property because it's where the greatest number of man-hours are spent, unless you take the view that a person's time is worthless) and "give away" (or sell for a trivial price, for those people that are afraid that they'll "get what they pay for") your support services for a set amount of time (generally, two generations of a product is long enough, at which point anyone using 2+ generations old versions should upgrade).
Now, Microsoft is moving towards a "Software as a service" model, but that model revolves more around the software rather than the support (you get "free" upgrades for the duration of your subscription, for example). This will work because customers get something of perceptible value for their dollars -- in other words, they don't get the software until they've paid the subscription fee. Giving away software to sell support can't be as successful, because the customers get the valuable portion (the software) for free, and have little incentive to then pay for help (which you can often find for free online, or get cheaply in the form of a book).
"Even businesses who may believe they are "mere users" of GPL software are threatened since they combine what they believe to be separate applications with GPL code. This licensing model has the effect of foreclosing a business's choice of what IP to share with the community and on what terms."
Okay, let's examine this for a moment. The phrase "combine what they blieve to be separate applications with GPL code" means that if they choose to incorporate GPL code into a tool that's distributed with a larger project, they could potentially be required to open up the code to the larger project (depending on how that tool is used, obviously). As well, it also has the more obvious meaning of including GPL'ed code in a project requires that project be GPL'ed. This is bad, and you can be sure that the listed examples (Sun, HP, IBM) do not do this on fear of being forced to give away their cash cows.
Following from the comment you quoted, the exammples of Sun, HP, and IBM surely carefully check that their own GPL'ed projects are not contaminating their proprietary code (then again, as I'm not employed by any of those companies, I couldn't tell you for sure).
Citing the large number of companies now paying to develop Free software, and that the majority of pages on the World Wide Web are served with Apache running on GNU/Linux systems, Stallman scoffed at claims that the GPL was unfriendly to business. "Microsoft says that busineses can't get along with the GPL. So if businesses don't include IBM, and HP, and Sun, then maybe they're right."
The argument was not that businesses can't get along with the GPL. It was that businesses can't prosper by relying solely on the GPL. The example given by Microsoft was giving away your most valuable property (your software), and then hoping to make money on the marginal business of supporting that software. IBM, HP, and Sun do not follow that pattern. They're large enough to be able to finance some GPL'ed projects, but they're not giving away their cash cows. Solaris is not GPL'ed, HP-UX is not GPL'ed (if you could really consider HP-UX a cash cow any more), Java is not GPL'ed, WorldSphere is not GPL'ed, and so on. And while you might argue that these companies support linux, which is a direct competitor to their own unices, they're making their money on the hardware, not the software. That's like calling Apple out for supporting MkLinux back in the day because it competed with Mac OS -- They still sold hardware either way, so they were happy.
<flamebait>RMS is not some messiah. He's not a good businessman, and he's also not that great of a programmer (ever looked at the emacs code? bloat bloat bloat). He's just a man, with an over-ambitious vision and the ego to back it up.</flamebait>
Slashdot Mirror
Can you say repeat? I knew you could. Of course, there's a real article this time, somebody else has written an article about the EULA. Old news, ho-hum, been there, done that, don't care, goodbye.
The difference is twofold. First, in terms of function, most sports cars (ignoring the Lamborghinis that get 2 MPG) get better mileage than an SUV, and are actually safer, as well (lower center of gravity, less likely to roll, MUCH better reaction time for acceleration, breaking, steering, and so on). Second, as a status symbol, sports cars are at least up front about being phallus replacements. How many idiots do you know that have SUVs or monster full-size pickups, yet never take them off the highway, or haul anything more than junior's bicycle?
But the main problem I have with SUVs is that the moron manufacturers are screwing with Darwin, keeping the SUV owners from getting what they deserve.
Sigh. Some people just didn't read the appellate finding, apparently. From the document:
Specifically, they reversed the DC's judgment that Microsoft violated part 2 of the Sherman Act, or in other words that they didn't illegally attempt to monopolize the internet browser market. They also remanded to the DC the finding that Microsoft violated part 1 of the Sherman Act, or the unlawful tying of the browser to the OS. The only part they did affirm, and this only partially (with the rest reversed, not remanded) was the violation of part 2 of the Sherman Act by using anti-competitive means to maintain it's OS monopoly. To see what exactly they affirm and what they reverse on that, feel free to dig deeper into the decision.What this means is that the appellate court DID NOT uphold that Microsoft is guilty of defending its monopoly, and in fact actually REVERSED an important decision necessary to the monopolization case. They've also REMANDED the second Sherman violation back to the district court.
Don't I know it! There's no real cutting-edge theaters out here (IMAX doesn't count, as that's not really cutting-edge), though one would expect at least something, what with being a big technology center. Oh well. I guess I'll continue to be happy watching movies at the Bella Botega or Cineplex Odeon (two eastside theaters with stadium seating). As far as better filming processes, the best I've heard of is 32fps. Of course, I'm assuming these get translated down for play in "normal" theaters, because to do otherwise would require a massive layout of cash by theater owners. And we all know that they don't make much money off of anything but the concessions :).
The reason why watching a film on a TV monitor vs watching a film in the theater is because that film is translated from 24fps to 30fps (usually by frame doubling, but I don't know the process well enough to describe it -- search the web. I've seen a good review of progressive scan DVD players that gave a good background to the whole film->video conversion process). And as far as films go, many theaters actually use projection cameras with shutters that open two or three times per frame, rather than once. It doesn't help the fact that there are still only 24 frames in a second, but it does make it seem a bit smoother (making it seem as if there are really 48 or 72 frames, though those are doubled or tripled).
And also which Passport has no reason to ever see. And why's that? Because Passport is just an authentication mechanism. It tells the MSDN site (or any site that uses Passport, for that matter) who you are. It's then up to MSDN to determine whether or not you're somebody who should get their stuff. In short, people aren't thinking, and going crazy about stuff that's not even happening!
Yes, it's true Passport can hold your payment information for you. However, that's an optional service, and it's highly unlikely it's being forced in this scenario (or any scenario, as it's good to allow for multiple means of payment -- in otherwords, I'm sure that if you wished to use Passport to give MSDN your payment info, you could, but you don't have to do so).
Why would they need more info from Passport? How simple do you think it is for them to keep a database mapping paid subscriptions to passport IDs on their own servers (not Passport's)? Why must this information come from Passport, when it's clearly site-specific? Come on, man, think these things through!
That future is already here today. The popular web comic Diesel Sweeties uses an intentionally-pixelized style. And there was that guy that rendered historical scenes in a Sims-like format.
Try some common sense, man. A EULA is a contract that can be terminated by either party at any time (note that this doesn't mean that you're absolved of any possible contractual abuse dating from when you were still under the EULA; it just means you can get out of the EULA whenever you please by taking certain steps). To do so, all you have to do is stop using the relevant product (remove it from your computer, possibly return any media like CDs or books). Thus, the phrase you're so intent on interprets to something along the lines of, "If you wish to continue using this SDK, then you're required to upgrade to the final version when it's released and obtain (possibly purchase) a license for said SDK." Obviously, you can opt out of that at any time simply by discontinuing your use of the SDK.
The major difference here is SDK vs Product. While it makes sense to time-expire a beta product, how would you do that with an SDK that's essentially nothing more than a bunch of headers, libs, and docs sitting on your drive? As well, simply not using a product after the expiration date is easily done -- just stop using. But when you're writing against an SDK, the assumption here is that you want to continue using the SDK. The alternative is to not use the SDK anymore. And that's all right, because if you're just evaluating the SDK and decide you don't want to use it, there's no problem (assuming that you really aren't using the SDK anymore). Once you decide that you want to continue using that SDK, though, you need to obtain a copy of the final version and a license to continue using it past the beta period.
SDK != Product. It's FUD to consider the possibility that Microsoft would use such a clause in the XP license, because XP is not an SDK. (The current betas are time-limited, so nothing else would be necessary to "force" an upgrade to RTM when XP ships. And such a clause in a shipping product would be redundant and meaningless).
Microsoft's definition of "Beta" is apparently different than yours, which is okay. However, if you want to look at beta software as a form of shareware, consider this -- the clause "you must upgrade to the final version" is the same as a shareware author saying "if you wish to continue using this product after the free evaluation period, you must pay me for a full version". No difference. Microsoft isn't going to force you to use the final version. You certainly have the option to stop using the software. However, if you're working on a product that is using that SDK, and you plan on releasing that product some day (either to users, or to a production server, or whatever), then it's in your best interest to make sure you're using the final version for your product, as beta software inevitably will have problems (hint: it's beta. It's not release quality yet).
Right, they don't have to support anything. OF course, it's in their interest to support the beta users, as that's valuable feedback for the final product. Microsoft has a long tradition of supporting developers. Look at the scope of their MSDN project. While that may not be considered active support, it is still support. And requiring MSDN to support Beta 1, and Beta 2, and RC1, and RC2, and the final release version all at the same time is ridiculous. The sane thing to do is to say that when Beta 2 is released, then Beta 1 is no longer supported and you better damned well upgrade. And so on up the ladder to release.
It may not be how you'd support a product, but it's how Microsoft supports a product, and it's been working for 25+ years so far.
I'm not talking about getting rich off of your art. I'm not even talking about maintaining a "comfortable" lifestyle. I'm talking about being able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, and clothes on your back. One would assume (without digging into historical documents, which I don't have time to do right now) that Van Gogh, Beethoven, Mozart, etc were able to at least make a paltry living off of their art, else they'd not have had the chance to make their art.
People talk about wanting to be able to make a living off of doing what they love. Well, if your love is writing software, or writing a novel, or writing/playing music, or painting portraits, or whatever, then you're going to want to be able to live off of the skill you have. The suggestion that nobody should ever have to pay for intellectual property is absurd, because it denies the artists the right to eat food.
While I agree that if not even a single dime could be made off of art, you'd still see artists producing works. However, one must wonder how much better those works would be if that artists were able to concentrate on them full time, rather than after a 9-5 day job.
The SDK in question is a beta SDK. As far as point (i) goes, of course they're going to require the recipient to upgrade to the final version when it's released -- it makes no sense to continue supporting a beta once the gold version exists. And for point (ii), again, this is a beta. If Microsoft makes major changes to the SDK, changes that need more testing than their internal testers can do, then it once again makes sense to require your beta testers to update. On top of that, it also means that when you're supporting a beta SDK, you don't have to support every permutation of that beta, only the latest builds.
Please try to understand what you're talking about, rather than slipping into the Slashdot FUD mode that seems to easy to obtain around here.
That's so much bullshit. The scary part is that you seem to actually believe what you're saying. You're apparently one of those "Information wants to be free" kind of people. While that may be true (the personification of information is pretty dumb, imho, but whatever), information is not created on its own. Somebody (or a number of somebodies) has to do the research or development (or drawing, or writing, or architecting, or ...) to create that information, and they deserve to be compensated for their work if they so desire.
Now, let's pick apart games in particular. A game is much more than just the underlying code. It's art (graphical and written/spoken word). To argue that a video game should be freely available is to argue that art, literature, and music should all be freely available, with no compensation for the creators at all. How do you ever expect to have any new art/music/literature/video games if this were to come to pass? None of those categories would simply fall off the face of the earth, but the quantity produced would significantly decrease. And the quality of what's left would even suffer, as it's difficult to dedicate oneself to one's art while working a day job so that one may stay fed and clothed.
It's not FUD to advocate for-pay software (whether you get source with your purchase or not). It's idiocy to advocate otherwise.
What's so wrong with saying "linux kernel" when you're referring to the linux kernel? Kinda like you'd refer to the "Windows NT kernel", or the "BSD kernel". Not that hard to do.
While it's true in theory (and on paper) that most UIUC instructors are against collaboration, a large number of the "good" ones (imho, as a recent graduate myself) look the other way at the very least. In fact, the only collaboration that is truly frowned upon is using somebody else's code.
I can't even count the number of nights spent in the basement of Grainger or the 4th floor, or in one of the DCL labs, or in Newmark (when I had to work as a lab sitter for EWS) with my group of CS friends, kicking around an MP[1], figuring out what it was asking, and what was needed to successfully complete the MP. Later, each of us would take a crack at his or her own implementation of the solutions we discussed, and then we'd all reconvene for mass debugging sessions, or to help those that got stuck in the code phase. Because the code is yours, and the solutions are arguably "unique enough", there was never any infraction of university policies, yet there was significant collaboration.
The better professors (Jeff Erickson, Sylvian Ray, Jason Zych (is he a professor yet?), Lenny Pitt, even Jean Ponce) would encourage students to attend office hours when they were stuck. Hell, if it weren't for those office hour sessions with Professor Ray, where between three and five of us would sit down and go through the homeworks, I don't think I'd have passed CS384 (Data Acquisition and DSP). And if it weren't for the collaboration of my peers, I'd never have been prepared for the "real world".
Just to make this clear -- collaboration, in and of itself, is not cheating, and the faculty understands this. It's when a group of people all hand in the same code that there's a problem ("Why?", you ask? Because you're not learning anything if you just copy Joe's code, but you will learn if you implement Joe's idea in your own code). In my four years at UIUC, I never once heard of anyone caught for cheating on an MP (at least, not in any of my classes), although I know of one or two people that should've been caught. But those were people who would simply take another's code pretty much verbatim, rather than join a study group and collaborate on solutions.
[1] MP - Machine Problem. UIUC term for programming assignments, though it is also used more broadly, from the strictest of coding assignments to developing circuits and more.
It's amazing that you can brush this off so easily when it's apparent that you haven't even heard (or seen, for that matter) what the latest Windows Media formats can do. Try this link if you're at all interested in scoping out the competition (yes, I realize that's an MS press release, but it does have a few good links to examples of content encoded with the new versions). The quality of the streaming video is no less than astounding, and the audio is right up there with it. So while you may not be excited that MP3Pro is as good as the "windoze AUdio 8 format" (as you put it in your oh-so-leet way), you'd do well not to brush this off lightly, either.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the argument, but what's the problem with removing a floppy disk from the drive during a read or write in Windows? As an empirical test, I just did that here. What happened? A message box popped up explaining that the file copy couldn't be completed because there was no disk to copy it to, and then another box popped up saying that the delayed write failed with a list of potential causes (hardware or network, basically). I fail to see the problem. Maybe I should qualify this by saying that I tested on Windows 2000, but that should be pretty much irrelevant (because if you must compare linux to windows, do it properly -- Win9x isn't even in the same league, and was never meant to be).
I think that'd be a no-win situation for Microsoft. On the one hand, if Microsoft doesn't port Office (ie, the status quo), they're blamed for tightly integrating it into the OS, and using their OS muscle to move Office units (neither of which are true, as witnessed by the fact that Office runs natively on the Macintosh, and runs well, and sells well even though Microsoft doesn't own the Mac). On the other hand, if Microsoft does port Office, they'll get called down for "trying to expand their monopoly". Not to mention not being able to recoup their developement costs due to the fact that lots and lots of Linux users are of the mind that everything for Linux should be free (wouldn't surprise me if some thought the hardware should be free as well) (note that's free, not Free, which is another can of worms, and I'll leave that for some other time).
That said, Microsoft's spokespeople have said more than a few times that whether or not they port applications to other platforms is a function of the demand for that application (coupled with profit potential, obviously, but that's why they're a business and not a non-profit organization). If you really want to see Office on Linux, start a letter-writing campaign. Rally everybody you possibly can, give them a well-written form letter expressing the desire to see Office on Linux and the willingness to pay reasonable prices, and bury Redmond under a deluge of requests to see Office/IE/Money/whatever on Linux. I'm sure you'll see some results.
You might want to keep an eye on your options, all the same. Most companies have option policies that will expire between 3 and 7 years (or so) after complete vesting. It'd be a shame to lose the options (if they're ever worth) anything through simple negligence.
Of course, if your strike price is higher than current market value, there's no point in bothering with the options. Still, it doesn't hurt to keep half an eye on the market, "just in case"
Just get one of IBM's CF microdrives, and plug it into a CF port.
How many people do you realistically expect to contribute fixes back to a project? One out of every thousand? One out of every ten thousand? One out of every ten? Certainly the ratio depends on the userbase. For instance, "users" of something like gtk (by which I mean the developers using the library) are probably more likely to submit bug fixes than users of StarOffice, for multiple reasons (fewer, more technically-inclined folk using the library, developers vs. Joe Sixpack, complexity of the project, so on).
I'm not denying that it happens. I'm just saying that when most people use that argument, they're being very idealistic. They're applying lessons learned from the linux kernel (for example) to an office suite (for another example). I really doubt the effect would be any greater than that gained from beta programs (which Microsoft actively runs, with great feedback from the beta users).
Oh, and in most cases, the shrinkwrapped software you buy is not beta-quality code. There are exceptions, like the PC gaming industry where deadlines are tight and publishers want a quick ROI, but overall most well-designed commercial applications are of higher quality than what you'll find in ~75% of the freshmeat entries or sourceforge projects.
This only works when dealing with B2B contracts. The model falls flat any time you try to live off of service fees in a B2C relationship, because most customers are simply unwilling to pay the necessary fees for service many of them consider (justly or not) useless. Would you pay $500 for a two or three year support contract for Microsoft Office, if Office were given to you for free? Would you even be willing to pay $15/mo for the same thing?
Too many people would answer "no" to those questions. Thus, to make money (allowing you to then make more software and also to be around to support what you've already written), you sell your software (which is your most valuable property because it's where the greatest number of man-hours are spent, unless you take the view that a person's time is worthless) and "give away" (or sell for a trivial price, for those people that are afraid that they'll "get what they pay for") your support services for a set amount of time (generally, two generations of a product is long enough, at which point anyone using 2+ generations old versions should upgrade).
Now, Microsoft is moving towards a "Software as a service" model, but that model revolves more around the software rather than the support (you get "free" upgrades for the duration of your subscription, for example). This will work because customers get something of perceptible value for their dollars -- in other words, they don't get the software until they've paid the subscription fee. Giving away software to sell support can't be as successful, because the customers get the valuable portion (the software) for free, and have little incentive to then pay for help (which you can often find for free online, or get cheaply in the form of a book).
Okay, let's examine this for a moment. The phrase "combine what they blieve to be separate applications with GPL code" means that if they choose to incorporate GPL code into a tool that's distributed with a larger project, they could potentially be required to open up the code to the larger project (depending on how that tool is used, obviously). As well, it also has the more obvious meaning of including GPL'ed code in a project requires that project be GPL'ed. This is bad, and you can be sure that the listed examples (Sun, HP, IBM) do not do this on fear of being forced to give away their cash cows.
Following from the comment you quoted, the exammples of Sun, HP, and IBM surely carefully check that their own GPL'ed projects are not contaminating their proprietary code (then again, as I'm not employed by any of those companies, I couldn't tell you for sure).
The argument was not that businesses can't get along with the GPL. It was that businesses can't prosper by relying solely on the GPL. The example given by Microsoft was giving away your most valuable property (your software), and then hoping to make money on the marginal business of supporting that software. IBM, HP, and Sun do not follow that pattern. They're large enough to be able to finance some GPL'ed projects, but they're not giving away their cash cows. Solaris is not GPL'ed, HP-UX is not GPL'ed (if you could really consider HP-UX a cash cow any more), Java is not GPL'ed, WorldSphere is not GPL'ed, and so on. And while you might argue that these companies support linux, which is a direct competitor to their own unices, they're making their money on the hardware, not the software. That's like calling Apple out for supporting MkLinux back in the day because it competed with Mac OS -- They still sold hardware either way, so they were happy.
<flamebait>RMS is not some messiah. He's not a good businessman, and he's also not that great of a programmer (ever looked at the emacs code? bloat bloat bloat). He's just a man, with an over-ambitious vision and the ego to back it up.</flamebait>