The NT codebase has lots to do with the 9x codebase.. You think they started from scratch? This is Microsoft we're talking about.. They didn't even code DOS, or Internet Explorer, from scratch
The obvious answer is no, and why should they? "starting from scratch" every time is just plain stupid. Bugs can easily be introduced to your code. If youi have solved a problem once, learn from your achievements.
Yeah, but Linus or one other high up people in the Linux/Unix community isn't looking over your shoulder, waiting to boot you out of the community for "voting the wrong way."
Only if you happen to included GNU software in a closed source project..
What would I do with it? Probably just oo and ah. What do I expect people would do with it? Well, let's see.... How about getting NTFS in Linux working well? Depending on how much they release I'm sure there are some other drivers that have been reverse-engineered that might get clued into a few things. If they also have to release Office source (not that I expect they'd have to, since Office was never part of the whole comingling thing), get all those open source projects to properly read and write Office formats.
It seems kinda funny that after all the bitching about how "micrsoft is the shittiest operating system ever" People in the linux community would Jump at the chance to steal Microsoft's source code, and use it in linux. I was under the impression that linux was better.
If linux is that much better, why even bother looking at microsofts source code?!
Because linux is only better as a free beer alternative.
kinda ironic and hypocritical at the same time......
I really can't see why the linux community supports the forced open source of microsft windows. It would be similar to the source that the EFF has collected over the years being taken away by the government.
I guess it's all right if it's a big business.......
I think the person that mentioned the real issue is that big companies are not needed anymore with respect to distributing, was very right. If artists were smart enough, they could distribute a small number of songs for free, and then provide the download from their own pay site. Maybe this isn't the perfect model, but one certain business model exists for the artist that is a lot better than their current traditional one
If the recording company could be taken out of the artist equation, it would be great, however, for people "sharing", it would be a bad thing.
Now, artists would only be getting revenue from the mp3 (or format that they choose to distribute), and sharing them for free would not only piss off the artist, but put them out of business. The people trying to legitimize music would have no excuse. You will then be able to see that sharing music does actually take money out of the artists' pockets.
Napster tried to charge for music online, and look whats happening. People are just clinging to "free as in beer" alternatives.
Maybe this isn't the perfect model, but one certain business model exists for the artist that is a lot better than their current traditional one
what? actually paying for music? Your model is only good for one type of person: The stingy ass filesharing monkey that refuses to pay for "shit music", yet listens to it anyway.
If someone owns illegal copies, it doesn't mean that he would buy it if he had no possibility to get it for free
If they are selling it, and you aren't going to buy it, you shouldn't want to pirate it either. Otherwise it's useful to you, and should be bought.
If he copies it illegally, at least the manufacturers of CDRs earn some money. So in fact, sharing music helps the econonmy a little bit and does not hurt it.
The record companies only care about their economy, not ours. BTW. murdering people helps the economy too. Bullet and gun sales.
Perhaps the record companies should stop producing shit and yelling that the reason for nobody buying this shit are the sharing networks. Bring out better music and people WILL buy it.
man, if it's artists like the backstreet boys and creed are really THAT shitty, why is everyone "sharing" it?
I think the RIAA and MPAA have just the opposite problem you are talking about. They are too popular. If they came out with complete shit, noone would watch, but noone would "pirate" either.
US Customs has rejected entry of a PCSega Dreamcast serial cable into the US, supposedly due to copyright violations
A similar experience happened to me when I tried to get one of those Playstation boot CDs, that allows me to play imports. It took me forever to find a company that would ship to the states.
windows xp(or whatever) and open-windows (sounds cool too)... this has potential to be a very interesting situation... ms could lose a lot of money if this happens
About as "cool" as a closed source corporate version of linux. Except 99% less slashdot bitching.
Your post reminds me of a cult movie from when I was in high school called "Video Drome." And, yeah, Debbie Harry was hot!!!
Was that the movie with the mind controlling VCRs?
Re:Why does google get a slashdot-patent-pass?
on
Google's Search Appliance
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just curious about people's opinions here. Google gets covered fairly regularly on slashdot. Usually when a company that uses software patents to protect its business from competition comes up on slashdot they get reamed along with the USPTO
This is only alright for google, because the average joe slashdot user doesn't have to pay anything to use their services. (proving further that it's all about the "free beer").
Look at the.gif or.mp3 standards. When the creators asked for a certain amount of money per usage, slashdotters were in an uproar.
In this climate of IT layoffs, I reckon it would prove cheaper and better to hire a programmer to take the GPL'ed ht://dig code and hack in some Google-like improvements.
Only if that programmer is willing to work for less than $20K a year.
and at the same time saving companies millions in administrative fees
and many slashdotters could very well be out of a sys-admin job......Thats the EVIL part...
Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you are missing the actual problem ? I dislike MS products not because they are so hard to patch, but because I _have to patch_ all the time.
Security holes are not supposed to exist at all. Making a licence that allows MS to upgrade their own buggy products without telling customers is.. better than not, but not good.
They should create bugfree software from the beginning instead:-)
What Operating are YOU using? I would LOVE to see an operating system that DOESN'T have to be patched all the time. EVERY operating system I have ever used, has to be patched once in awhile.
I think if microsoft never released any patches, you would probably be making a similar argument.
changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer. In the section on Windows XP Professional, 'Internet-Based Services Components' paragraph says in part, 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'"
They are saving their own asses, so people won't try to sue them for illegally accessing their computer. I think we should be a little less paranoid, and a more supportive. Microsoft is now providing Auto-Updates for their software. Isn't this what people wanted? (Systems can now be atched quite quickly).
The FSF would not benefit from using strong-arm tactics. They don't try to extract "fines" from companies - they just demand that the GPL violation be fixed. They are there to protect the little guy who wants his code to be free, not to goad companies into paying exhorbant fees for software
Here is the thing, though. Money is just as important to companies as code is to a programmer (using the GPL). Why should it be alright to bother one group of violators over another?
The BSA's teeth is provided by the byzantine EULA's that you agree to by using most proprietary software. The EULA's usually force YOU to agree to BSA "audits" at YOUR expense.
You are agreeing to private police.
What about richard stallman?
If he feels that a company is using the GPL in a way he doesn't like, he confronts them as well. Most companies just give in, but I would imagine if they didn't, a court battle would insue.
Although not as violent or agressive, this isn't much different than what the BSA does.
Why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions? Why should our government always be on the side of the big business
Because then, unfortunately, we would have to go after GPLd software that suffered the same fate.
The only difference is that software companies have put absurd and unenforcable licensing agreements in place of the standard copyright notices. Are they legal? Probably not. Has anyone devoted the time and $$$$ to taking the matter to court? Don't know, but I doubt it. Instead, everyone's scared of big companies.
Unlike like a television or a radio, software can be infinitely copied. I agree with the notion that what the BSA are doing is bullshit, but the people that say that software licenses are "absurd" just want something for nothing. (free as in beer). If you don't like the license, don't USE it. Stop Bitching...PLEASE...
I take that product home, the company who made it can fuck off.
Just like the GPL, when you buy software, you do not "own" it.(with non-GPLd code You are merely renting it for a one time fee.).
when you rent an apartment, can the owner "fuck off"?
No CD-ROMs full of code when a Web site would do the job better
It's actually better that it comes with a CD full of code. What happens if you can't get internet access? Or the company that published the book goes under?
Slashdot Mirror
The NT codebase has lots to do with the 9x codebase.. You think they started from scratch? This is Microsoft we're talking about.. They didn't even code DOS, or Internet Explorer, from scratch
The obvious answer is no, and why should they? "starting from scratch" every time is just plain stupid. Bugs can easily be introduced to your code. If youi have solved a problem once, learn from your achievements.
Yeah, but Linus or one other high up people in the Linux/Unix community isn't looking over your shoulder, waiting to boot you out of the community for "voting the wrong way."
Only if you happen to included GNU software in a closed source project..
What would I do with it? Probably just oo and ah. What do I expect people would do with it? Well, let's see.... How about getting NTFS in Linux working well? Depending on how much they release I'm sure there are some other drivers that have been reverse-engineered that might get clued into a few things. If they also have to release Office source (not that I expect they'd have to, since Office was never part of the whole comingling thing), get all those open source projects to properly read and write Office formats.
It seems kinda funny that after all the bitching about how "micrsoft is the shittiest operating system ever" People in the linux community would Jump at the chance to steal Microsoft's source code, and use it in linux. I was under the impression that linux was better.
If linux is that much better, why even bother looking at microsofts source code?!
Because linux is only better as a free beer alternative.
kinda ironic and hypocritical at the same time......
W2K Server = Samba Eradicator (not while I'm alive!)
this is funny. Especially since microsoft invented the protocols samba attempts to emulate.
I really can't see why the linux community supports the forced open source of microsft windows. It would be similar to the source that the EFF has collected over the years being taken away by the government.
I guess it's all right if it's a big business.......
You can't use the code for commercial gain, but I could see a non-profit network springing up...
Why is this even on slashdot?! The producer of this code is releasing it under a "non free" license.
The attorney's concern about Austin being jacked around in "detention" for an indefinite period of time says a great deal about our judicial system
After someone defaces websites, and promotes the overthrow of our government through violence, it only tells me that uor judicial system works.
I think the person that mentioned the real issue is that big companies are not needed anymore with respect to distributing, was very right. If artists were smart enough, they could distribute a small number of songs for free, and then provide the download from their own pay site. Maybe this isn't the perfect model, but one certain business model exists for the artist that is a lot better than their current traditional one
If the recording company could be taken out of the artist equation, it would be great, however, for people "sharing", it would be a bad thing.
Now, artists would only be getting revenue from the mp3 (or format that they choose to distribute), and sharing them for free would not only piss off the artist, but put them out of business. The people trying to legitimize music would have no excuse. You will then be able to see that sharing music does actually take money out of the artists' pockets.
Napster tried to charge for music online, and look whats happening. People are just clinging to "free as in beer" alternatives.
Maybe this isn't the perfect model, but one certain business model exists for the artist that is a lot better than their current traditional one
what? actually paying for music? Your model is only good for one type of person: The stingy ass filesharing monkey that refuses to pay for "shit music", yet listens to it anyway.
If someone owns illegal copies, it doesn't mean that he would buy it if he had no possibility to get it for free
If they are selling it, and you aren't going to buy it, you shouldn't want to pirate it either. Otherwise it's useful to you, and should be bought.
If he copies it illegally, at least the manufacturers of CDRs earn some money. So in fact, sharing music helps the econonmy a little bit and does not hurt it.
The record companies only care about their economy, not ours. BTW. murdering people helps the economy too. Bullet and gun sales.
Perhaps the record companies should stop producing shit and yelling that the reason for nobody buying this shit are the sharing networks. Bring out better music and people WILL buy it.
man, if it's artists like the backstreet boys and creed are really THAT shitty, why is everyone "sharing" it?
I think the RIAA and MPAA have just the opposite problem you are talking about. They are too popular. If they came out with complete shit, noone would watch, but noone would "pirate" either.
US Customs has rejected entry of a PCSega Dreamcast serial cable into the US, supposedly due to copyright violations
A similar experience happened to me when I tried to get one of those Playstation boot CDs, that allows me to play imports. It took me forever to find a company that would ship to the states.
Thats called counterfeiting, and you KNOW that its wrong
Like "copyright infringement", it's just another word for "sharing". How is this ANY different than distributing music I bought to all of my friends.
1) Nothing is lost in the transaction. The company isn't going to "lose" any more than a record company is going to "lose" money on me copying my CD.
2)my friends are stingy, and they wouldn't have bought a ticket anyway.
3)sharing music, software, or any other copyrighted material is called "pirating" and YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG!
windows xp(or whatever) and open-windows (sounds cool too)... this has potential to be a very interesting situation... ms could lose a lot of money if this happens
About as "cool" as a closed source corporate version of linux. Except 99% less slashdot bitching.
Your post reminds me of a cult movie from when I was in high school called "Video Drome." And, yeah, Debbie Harry was hot!!!
Was that the movie with the mind controlling VCRs?
Just curious about people's opinions here. Google gets covered fairly regularly on slashdot. Usually when a company that uses software patents to protect its business from competition comes up on slashdot they get reamed along with the USPTO
.gif or .mp3 standards. When the creators asked for a certain amount of money per usage, slashdotters were in an uproar.
This is only alright for google, because the average joe slashdot user doesn't have to pay anything to use their services. (proving further that it's all about the "free beer").
Look at the
In this climate of IT layoffs, I reckon it would prove cheaper and better to hire a programmer to take the GPL'ed ht://dig code and hack in some Google-like improvements.
Only if that programmer is willing to work for less than $20K a year.
Closed source programs like Office are the standard in government (just like in the private sector).
.doc or .opensource.
This is the case for one reason only: Most businesses do not care whether the standard of their documents is
If you would like to convince them otherwise, their has to be a reason to switch. (and not just: "because it's Open Source").
and at the same time saving companies millions in administrative fees
and many slashdotters could very well be out of a sys-admin job......Thats the EVIL part...
Perhaps you are missing the actual problem ? I dislike MS products not because they are so hard to patch, but because I _have to patch_ all the time.
:-)
Security holes are not supposed to exist at all. Making a licence that allows MS to upgrade their own buggy products without telling customers is.. better than not, but not good.
They should create bugfree software from the beginning instead
What Operating are YOU using? I would LOVE to see an operating system that DOESN'T have to be patched all the time. EVERY operating system I have ever used, has to be patched once in awhile.
I think if microsoft never released any patches, you would probably be making a similar argument.
changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer. In the section on Windows XP Professional, 'Internet-Based Services Components' paragraph says in part, 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'"
They are saving their own asses, so people won't try to sue them for illegally accessing their computer. I think we should be a little less paranoid, and a more supportive. Microsoft is now providing Auto-Updates for their software. Isn't this what people wanted? (Systems can now be atched quite quickly).
disagree - The GPL is there for your, protection. Stallman is protecting the general public when he goes after infringers.
The BSA is out for the company's best interest
One political agenda over another. Neither is in the right.
The FSF would not benefit from using strong-arm tactics. They don't try to extract "fines" from companies - they just demand that the GPL violation be fixed. They are there to protect the little guy who wants his code to be free, not to goad companies into paying exhorbant fees for software
Here is the thing, though. Money is just as important to companies as code is to a programmer (using the GPL). Why should it be alright to bother one group of violators over another?
Running OSS software is the ONLY solution.
The BSA's teeth is provided by the byzantine EULA's that you agree to by using most proprietary software. The EULA's usually force YOU to agree to BSA "audits" at YOUR expense.
You are agreeing to private police.
What about richard stallman?
If he feels that a company is using the GPL in a way he doesn't like, he confronts them as well. Most companies just give in, but I would imagine if they didn't, a court battle would insue.
Although not as violent or agressive, this isn't much different than what the BSA does.
Why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions? Why should our government always be on the side of the big business
Because then, unfortunately, we would have to go after GPLd software that suffered the same fate.
The only difference is that software companies have put absurd and unenforcable licensing agreements in place of the standard copyright notices. Are they legal? Probably not. Has anyone devoted the time and $$$$ to taking the matter to court? Don't know, but I doubt it. Instead, everyone's scared of big companies.
Unlike like a television or a radio, software can be infinitely copied. I agree with the notion that what the BSA are doing is bullshit, but the people that say that software licenses are "absurd" just want something for nothing. (free as in beer). If you don't like the license, don't USE it. Stop Bitching...PLEASE...
I take that product home, the company who made it can fuck off.
Just like the GPL, when you buy software, you do not "own" it.(with non-GPLd code You are merely renting it for a one time fee.).
when you rent an apartment, can the owner "fuck off"?
No CD-ROMs full of code when a Web site would do the job better
It's actually better that it comes with a CD full of code. What happens if you can't get internet access? Or the company that published the book goes under?