Love or hate him, no-one can deny the guy achieved a hell of a lot in his life. Even though he'd resigned his post the man still had a lot to offer.
RIP Steve.
amen to that, he contributed more to driving the technology industry than just about anyone else.
Are you kidding? "Logical way to do it"? Those items are exact replicas.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'exact'.
The icons in the store
Did you even read what i wrote? I completely agreed with that and asked the question if the store is actually even legit given the obviousness of the copy.
the USB
Again, I already explained why it would make sense to do that, do you believe otherwise?
and power adapters.
I already went through that.
The boxes
So you obviously didn't read what i wrote, the first thing i pointed out is that the boxes are a blatant ripoff.
If it was so obvious why didn't Samsung do it before Apple?
Yet another example proving you didn't even read what i wrote, i never said any of it was obvious.
I also noticed you completely avoided addressing the part where apple copied WD. I have both Apple (ipad, macbook air) and Samsung (TV, omnia) products and it's extremely easy to pick out individual design elements copied from eachother or from other companies.
I both agree and disagree with aspects of that.
The box art is a blatant ripoff, no question, they just copied almost exactly what Apple did.
The store icons are pretty fucked up, i wonder if that is actually an official samsung store though, kinda like those unofficial apple stores?
The USB cable I dunno about, i mean one end is obviously a standard, the other end is flat, which of course when you have a thin phone it makes sense to do, sizing it the same means that holders like the proclip ones with removable cables can be used with different devices without replacing it. So there is some logic to that.
With the USB/Power breakout they've made it a different colour, different design and different radius on the corners, but evidently made it - just as apple did - as small as possible to still fit the circuitry and the standard. They could have made it with square edges or a tube just for the sake of it i suppose.
The microphone app is just the fact that they both have pictures of microphones, there's only so much you can do there, again they could have just looked at what apple did and then done it different just for the sake of it.
Lastly the AppleTV looks to be a pretty blatant ripoff of a Western Digital device, so they aren't exactly clear in the copying area themselves.
So realistically Samsung probably should try and differentiate from Apple even if just for the sake of it, but many of those things are the logical way to do it.
So it's either let everybody know what you're working on and risk competitors beating you to market, or keep quiet and risk disappointment among the fans when their hyped up assumptions prove wrong.
But the things people were expecting are things that are already on the market not things where they would have to worry about competitors beating them, Apple's PR should have managed those expectations somewhat given they knew the device would be below the cutting edge of the industry in particular aspects, as in screen size, NFC and radio (and yes in many aspects it does still define the industry cutting edge, like screen resolution).
Do you not understand Psystar is distributing a modified copy?
Installing OS X on a hackintosh one at a time the way home users do and then selling it would be distributing a modified original, not a copy, and therefore be OK (which is the point I've been trying to make).
No it wouldn't be ok, because it isn't an original at all, it is a modified copy of the original, a derivative work.
Because that's what this topic is about, did you not even read it? Do you not understand Psystar is distributing a modified copy?
Here's what you don't seem to get: I'm talking about USE, not distribution of new copies.
And that has a relevance here how? This is about distributing modified copies.
And actually you tried to tell someone it was incorrect that you don't own GPL software, that is obviously wrong. Then you tried to tell me the only thing ownership of the software grants you is the right to make copies, which is again incorrect.
Matters when? Certainly not if you want to sell or distribute it.
Owning the software's copyright (what you mean when you say "owning the software") is just that: owning the right to create copies, and nothing else.
Rubbish, if i own the software i dictate the license, that is more than the 'right to create copies', it is the right to control distribution, which is a key difference for example between the GPL and BSD. I can create copies with both licenses but unless i own the software i can't distribute it under my own terms if they differ from the license of the software.
Even in the case of open source software, it is the same. You don't own GPL software; you license it.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
You are not required to have a license to use GPL software; if you obtained the copy legally then it is yours, you own that copy, and you can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law.
He said you don't own the software, he didn't say you don't own the copy. If i owned the software i wouldn't have to worry about the terms of the license because the owner of the software is the person that dictates the license.
And if the manufacturer disables the ability to turn off Secure Boot due to terms in their distribution agreement with Microsoft, what then?
Motherboard manufacturers don't have distribution agreements with Microsoft because they don't distribute Windows, that's the system builders. And where is this term in the distribution agreement you're talking about anyway? Do you actually think that they couldn't have locked people to the platform before UEFI if they wanted to?
This is not a "warning, coffee is hot" issue but a "warning this coffee is dangerously hot and will require surgery if you spill it on you" issue.
So now everything normally labelled 'hot' needs a distinction between 'hot' and 'hot enough to burn you'?
But what about really broken stuff? Ie, you install an antivirus package and for some reason it decides to reformat your hard drive?
That's just malicious software.
ie, software that needs to be approved by the FDA or FCC or is sold to a customer after signing a lengthy contract that details the amount of damages to pay for downtime. So I don't think it's a big deal to have liability for software.
Great, so end users are going to have a hundred-thousand page document detailing every possible situation in which the software can be used to say where and when the company will be held liable, how on earth do you think this is feasible for an operating system? Particularly when you have so many drivers and other 3rd party software interacting with it? If the video card driver crashes how do you determine who was responsible? Was it a bug caused by negligence on the part of the driver company? Was it the way it interacted with the OS? If so was it because of poor documentation or was it an OS bug? Or was it another 3rd party application interacting incorrectly with the video card? Or was it a hardware glitch? Or was it a combination of multiple pieces of software?
That said, is it unreasonable to try and fix all bugs? Sure. Impossible? No.
So you're saying that you can ship a bug-free operating system consisting of tens of millions of lines of code. Not one single bug in that code?
Can you imagine the court cases on this? I mean 3rd party device drivers cause a hell of a lot of operating system crashes, you would have device manufacturer fighting the OS manufacturer to determine who's fault the crash was, not only that but you would need mountains of documentation for any API just to cover all possible combinations of calls in case something caused a crash.
"...on a dollars-per-line basis, it makes the group among the nation's most expensive software organizations."
"The specs for that one change run 2,500 pages, a volume thicker than a phone book."
Which means it takes forever to actually get anything done. I can see why though, the smallest mistake could cost the mission and the lives of astronauts, a typical space shuttle launch cost nearly 1/2 a billion dollars, add the cost of compensation for loss of life and you can understand why software development would take years and cost millions of dollars.
There also shouldn't be disclaimers that "this coffee can burn your ass," "don't point this gun at your face" or "don't use this curling iron to stir your bathwater while it's plugged in."
No, there should be laws that make the people who made such things liable! If i'm stupid i should be able to profit from it dammit! I tried to snort my latte and starbucks didn't stop me, i deserve 1 million dollars!
If you had 10 year old PC with XP then you probably have to upgrade. Anyone who bought a PC with Windows Vista can probably upgrade to Windows 8.
A significant amount of Microsoft's sales is from upgrades, so they aren't going to ignore that market.
How do you figure? They get paid for a license whether you upgrade your computer or not, in fact if you don't upgrade you're likely buying a retail copy as opposed to an OEM which is more expensive anyway.
Android offers much better "at glance" usability functionality and seamless search function as well.
How so? I'm not saying it's wrong but i'm not sure how you're quantifying this.
it does not work so well when you compare Bing and Google.
What doesn't work so well? I've tried bing services like local scout across an europe and australia, seems to very well.
And you can not install Google services to WP7.5 at all. What is terrible feature.
Huh? Of course you can, have you actually used a WP7 device?
About Android, every WP7 fan always leaves out the functionality of its multiple screens, widgets
WP7 and iOS aren't designed for widgets, hence the reason they are left out, just the same as Android isn't designed for live tiles.
global gestures and buttons
global gestures? you mean the ability to use the same gesture to do the same thing in different places? pretty sure WP7 and iOS have this too, they also have buttons.
Android actually gives less scrolling, more space for actual information and allows user to even build activities to different things, like for work, home and hobby. So user is never shown un-related information if not important.
I think you'll need an example there of how that rambling sentence actually relates to Android vs WP7 & iOS.
Erm, in none of the articles mentioned so far was it stated that Lindows didn't infringe on the Windows trademark
That is what the lawsuit was about, like i said: The ruling was absolutely nothing to do with the Windows trademark being generic, it was that Lindows didn't infringe upon it.
Lindows weren't saying Windows is generic, they were saying they didn't infringe on the Windows trademark.
only that the trademark is not necessarily valid - even in the quote you just put in there it says "the trademark is not necessarily valid", feel free to make up whatever you like though, i'm done.
Yet here we are, with a valid trademark and absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest it would be invalid, feel free to mindlessly buy into the conjecture though. You don't actually have any idea why you believe the trademark might not be valid, you're just taking that quote, believing it without question and propagating it, pretty dumb thing to do.
Their is nothing to stop an OEM from first charging for the PC, then charging for the unlock of the bootloader. Furthermore, said OEM can threaten those who "jail break" their own PCs with voiding the warranty.
Yet after all these years no-one actually does such a thing, furthermore even the tablet makers who originally locked down their bootloaders are reversing such policies so you can take off your tinfoil hat because there is nothing to support your conspiracy theory.
We're worried that UEFI will get so entrenched in motherboard design that it will be difficult to obtain consumer-level motherboards that don't have UEFI pre-locked to Windows.
What is wrong with UEFI? If you don't want to use the Secure Boot feature of UEFI then turn it off, simple.
Are you planning to design and fab your own motherboard, as well?
I think you've failed to understand the issue here, it is that if OEMs want to have the 'designed for Windows 8' logo on their system - which if you are building your own system you won't be getting anyway - they have to enable secure boot by default. There is nothing to stop you from turning it off except the OEM, which if you built it yourself would be you.
The US District Court in Seattle ruled Wednesday that the jury in the case should "consider whether the Windows mark was generic" before Windows 1.0 entered the marketplace in 1985. It also said that even if the "primary significance" of the term is not generic today - that is, has been displaced by the proprietary use - the trademark is not necessarily valid.
The ruling was absolutely nothing to do with the Windows trademark being generic, it was that Lindows didn't infringe upon it. So while they should consider it there is no reason to believe it would be ruled invalid.
i probably should have added that after this trial microsoft payed lindows 20 million dollars [sys-con.com] to change their name to linspire and protect their windows trademark.
And? Again, nothing to do with the Windows trademark being invalid. And not only that but the statement from their counsel ignores the fact that millions of trademarks are of regular English words, it's the context in which they are taken that matters, i mean Apple has a trademark on AirPort and the French word 'bonjour' among many others. No-one calls a computer operating system a 'Windows' just as no-one calls a router an 'AirPort'.
No, I'm not a "pirate" and I don't steal stuff from "Rights Holders" and "Intellectual Property" evangelists. However, I do advocate boycotting them and everything they're selling for pushing draconian "legislation" such as ACTA. This sort of crap is not adding value to the world.
Nobody *needs* anything they're selling.
Don't buy it. Don't use it. Find other suppliers. There's plenty of them if you'd only look! Teach 'em how to rot in hell. Don't go there or play their game, and convince your friends not to as well.
They're slime, they're acting like slime, and you need not put up with actions such as theirs. They're also co-opting your government and legal system against you.
Just don't buy their !@#$. Watch 'em fade into history as they should.
Civil disobedience is not boycotting or finding other suppliers.
Slashdot Mirror
Love or hate him, no-one can deny the guy achieved a hell of a lot in his life. Even though he'd resigned his post the man still had a lot to offer. RIP Steve.
amen to that, he contributed more to driving the technology industry than just about anyone else.
Are you kidding? "Logical way to do it"? Those items are exact replicas.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'exact'.
The icons in the store
Did you even read what i wrote? I completely agreed with that and asked the question if the store is actually even legit given the obviousness of the copy.
the USB
Again, I already explained why it would make sense to do that, do you believe otherwise?
and power adapters.
I already went through that.
The boxes
So you obviously didn't read what i wrote, the first thing i pointed out is that the boxes are a blatant ripoff.
If it was so obvious why didn't Samsung do it before Apple?
Yet another example proving you didn't even read what i wrote, i never said any of it was obvious.
I also noticed you completely avoided addressing the part where apple copied WD. I have both Apple (ipad, macbook air) and Samsung (TV, omnia) products and it's extremely easy to pick out individual design elements copied from eachother or from other companies.
I both agree and disagree with aspects of that.
The box art is a blatant ripoff, no question, they just copied almost exactly what Apple did.
The store icons are pretty fucked up, i wonder if that is actually an official samsung store though, kinda like those unofficial apple stores?
The USB cable I dunno about, i mean one end is obviously a standard, the other end is flat, which of course when you have a thin phone it makes sense to do, sizing it the same means that holders like the proclip ones with removable cables can be used with different devices without replacing it. So there is some logic to that.
With the USB/Power breakout they've made it a different colour, different design and different radius on the corners, but evidently made it - just as apple did - as small as possible to still fit the circuitry and the standard. They could have made it with square edges or a tube just for the sake of it i suppose.
The microphone app is just the fact that they both have pictures of microphones, there's only so much you can do there, again they could have just looked at what apple did and then done it different just for the sake of it.
Lastly the AppleTV looks to be a pretty blatant ripoff of a Western Digital device, so they aren't exactly clear in the copying area themselves.
So realistically Samsung probably should try and differentiate from Apple even if just for the sake of it, but many of those things are the logical way to do it.
So it's either let everybody know what you're working on and risk competitors beating you to market, or keep quiet and risk disappointment among the fans when their hyped up assumptions prove wrong.
But the things people were expecting are things that are already on the market not things where they would have to worry about competitors beating them, Apple's PR should have managed those expectations somewhat given they knew the device would be below the cutting edge of the industry in particular aspects, as in screen size, NFC and radio (and yes in many aspects it does still define the industry cutting edge, like screen resolution).
Installing OS X on a hackintosh one at a time the way home users do and then selling it would be distributing a modified original, not a copy, and therefore be OK (which is the point I've been trying to make).
No it wouldn't be ok, because it isn't an original at all, it is a modified copy of the original, a derivative work.
You keep talking about "distribution."
Because that's what this topic is about, did you not even read it? Do you not understand Psystar is distributing a modified copy?
Here's what you don't seem to get: I'm talking about USE, not distribution of new copies.
And that has a relevance here how? This is about distributing modified copies.
And actually you tried to tell someone it was incorrect that you don't own GPL software, that is obviously wrong.
Then you tried to tell me the only thing ownership of the software grants you is the right to make copies, which is again incorrect.
But it's owning the copy that matters!
Matters when? Certainly not if you want to sell or distribute it.
Owning the software's copyright (what you mean when you say "owning the software") is just that: owning the right to create copies, and nothing else.
Rubbish, if i own the software i dictate the license, that is more than the 'right to create copies', it is the right to control distribution, which is a key difference for example between the GPL and BSD. I can create copies with both licenses but unless i own the software i can't distribute it under my own terms if they differ from the license of the software.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
You are not required to have a license to use GPL software; if you obtained the copy legally then it is yours, you own that copy, and you can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law.
He said you don't own the software, he didn't say you don't own the copy. If i owned the software i wouldn't have to worry about the terms of the license because the owner of the software is the person that dictates the license.
And if the manufacturer disables the ability to turn off Secure Boot due to terms in their distribution agreement with Microsoft, what then?
Motherboard manufacturers don't have distribution agreements with Microsoft because they don't distribute Windows, that's the system builders. And where is this term in the distribution agreement you're talking about anyway? Do you actually think that they couldn't have locked people to the platform before UEFI if they wanted to?
This is not a "warning, coffee is hot" issue but a "warning this coffee is dangerously hot and will require surgery if you spill it on you" issue.
So now everything normally labelled 'hot' needs a distinction between 'hot' and 'hot enough to burn you'?
But what about really broken stuff? Ie, you install an antivirus package and for some reason it decides to reformat your hard drive?
That's just malicious software.
ie, software that needs to be approved by the FDA or FCC or is sold to a customer after signing a lengthy contract that details the amount of damages to pay for downtime. So I don't think it's a big deal to have liability for software.
Great, so end users are going to have a hundred-thousand page document detailing every possible situation in which the software can be used to say where and when the company will be held liable, how on earth do you think this is feasible for an operating system? Particularly when you have so many drivers and other 3rd party software interacting with it? If the video card driver crashes how do you determine who was responsible? Was it a bug caused by negligence on the part of the driver company? Was it the way it interacted with the OS? If so was it because of poor documentation or was it an OS bug? Or was it another 3rd party application interacting incorrectly with the video card? Or was it a hardware glitch? Or was it a combination of multiple pieces of software?
That said, is it unreasonable to try and fix all bugs? Sure. Impossible? No.
So you're saying that you can ship a bug-free operating system consisting of tens of millions of lines of code. Not one single bug in that code?
Can you imagine the court cases on this? I mean 3rd party device drivers cause a hell of a lot of operating system crashes, you would have device manufacturer fighting the OS manufacturer to determine who's fault the crash was, not only that but you would need mountains of documentation for any API just to cover all possible combinations of calls in case something caused a crash.
"...on a dollars-per-line basis, it makes the group among the nation's most expensive software organizations." "The specs for that one change run 2,500 pages, a volume thicker than a phone book."
Which means it takes forever to actually get anything done. I can see why though, the smallest mistake could cost the mission and the lives of astronauts, a typical space shuttle launch cost nearly 1/2 a billion dollars, add the cost of compensation for loss of life and you can understand why software development would take years and cost millions of dollars.
There also shouldn't be disclaimers that "this coffee can burn your ass," "don't point this gun at your face" or "don't use this curling iron to stir your bathwater while it's plugged in."
No, there should be laws that make the people who made such things liable! If i'm stupid i should be able to profit from it dammit! I tried to snort my latte and starbucks didn't stop me, i deserve 1 million dollars!
If you had 10 year old PC with XP then you probably have to upgrade. Anyone who bought a PC with Windows Vista can probably upgrade to Windows 8.
A significant amount of Microsoft's sales is from upgrades, so they aren't going to ignore that market.
How do you figure? They get paid for a license whether you upgrade your computer or not, in fact if you don't upgrade you're likely buying a retail copy as opposed to an OEM which is more expensive anyway.
Android offers much better "at glance" usability functionality and seamless search function as well.
How so? I'm not saying it's wrong but i'm not sure how you're quantifying this.
it does not work so well when you compare Bing and Google.
What doesn't work so well? I've tried bing services like local scout across an europe and australia, seems to very well.
And you can not install Google services to WP7.5 at all. What is terrible feature.
Huh? Of course you can, have you actually used a WP7 device?
About Android, every WP7 fan always leaves out the functionality of its multiple screens, widgets
WP7 and iOS aren't designed for widgets, hence the reason they are left out, just the same as Android isn't designed for live tiles.
global gestures and buttons
global gestures? you mean the ability to use the same gesture to do the same thing in different places? pretty sure WP7 and iOS have this too, they also have buttons.
Android actually gives less scrolling, more space for actual information and allows user to even build activities to different things, like for work, home and hobby. So user is never shown un-related information if not important.
I think you'll need an example there of how that rambling sentence actually relates to Android vs WP7 & iOS.
Erm, in none of the articles mentioned so far was it stated that Lindows didn't infringe on the Windows trademark
That is what the lawsuit was about, like i said:
The ruling was absolutely nothing to do with the Windows trademark being generic, it was that Lindows didn't infringe upon it.
Lindows weren't saying Windows is generic, they were saying they didn't infringe on the Windows trademark.
only that the trademark is not necessarily valid - even in the quote you just put in there it says "the trademark is not necessarily valid", feel free to make up whatever you like though, i'm done.
Yet here we are, with a valid trademark and absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest it would be invalid, feel free to mindlessly buy into the conjecture though. You don't actually have any idea why you believe the trademark might not be valid, you're just taking that quote, believing it without question and propagating it, pretty dumb thing to do.
Yeah you have that now... What will you have in a couple of years time?
The same thing, there was nothing to stop OEMs locking bootloaders before so why do it now?
turn Secure Boot off?
Their is nothing to stop an OEM from first charging for the PC, then charging for the unlock of the bootloader. Furthermore, said OEM can threaten those who "jail break" their own PCs with voiding the warranty.
Yet after all these years no-one actually does such a thing, furthermore even the tablet makers who originally locked down their bootloaders are reversing such policies so you can take off your tinfoil hat because there is nothing to support your conspiracy theory.
We're worried that UEFI will get so entrenched in motherboard design that it will be difficult to obtain consumer-level motherboards that don't have UEFI pre-locked to Windows.
What is wrong with UEFI? If you don't want to use the Secure Boot feature of UEFI then turn it off, simple.
Are you planning to design and fab your own motherboard, as well?
I think you've failed to understand the issue here, it is that if OEMs want to have the 'designed for Windows 8' logo on their system - which if you are building your own system you won't be getting anyway - they have to enable secure boot by default. There is nothing to stop you from turning it off except the OEM, which if you built it yourself would be you.
Today, I can load linux on any machine, regardless of whether the manufacturer sucks.
No you can't, plenty of manufacturers lock down bootloaders to stop this, it isn't new.
I won't be able to do this in the future.
Why not? The only thing preventing you would be locking down of the boot process, which some manufacturers already do.
The US District Court in Seattle ruled Wednesday that the jury in the case should "consider whether the Windows mark was generic" before Windows 1.0 entered the marketplace in 1985. It also said that even if the "primary significance" of the term is not generic today - that is, has been displaced by the proprietary use - the trademark is not necessarily valid.
The ruling was absolutely nothing to do with the Windows trademark being generic, it was that Lindows didn't infringe upon it. So while they should consider it there is no reason to believe it would be ruled invalid.
i probably should have added that after this trial microsoft payed lindows 20 million dollars [sys-con.com] to change their name to linspire and protect their windows trademark.
And? Again, nothing to do with the Windows trademark being invalid. And not only that but the statement from their counsel ignores the fact that millions of trademarks are of regular English words, it's the context in which they are taken that matters, i mean Apple has a trademark on AirPort and the French word 'bonjour' among many others. No-one calls a computer operating system a 'Windows' just as no-one calls a router an 'AirPort'.
Civil disobedience.
No, I'm not a "pirate" and I don't steal stuff from "Rights Holders" and "Intellectual Property" evangelists. However, I do advocate boycotting them and everything they're selling for pushing draconian "legislation" such as ACTA. This sort of crap is not adding value to the world.
Nobody *needs* anything they're selling.
Don't buy it. Don't use it. Find other suppliers. There's plenty of them if you'd only look! Teach 'em how to rot in hell. Don't go there or play their game, and convince your friends not to as well.
They're slime, they're acting like slime, and you need not put up with actions such as theirs. They're also co-opting your government and legal system against you.
Just don't buy their !@#$. Watch 'em fade into history as they should.
Civil disobedience is not boycotting or finding other suppliers.
Since iOS5, neither iPad nor iPhone will require a computer at all.
You mean when iOS5 is actually released.