OSS doesn't have licencing costs (which are a huge factor and headache for smaller companies), and are (generally) more reliable with respect to issues such as viruses, worms and trojans.
only because 2% of people are actually using the products on the internet. Most trojan,virus and worm writers try to infect the largest amount of users possible (and most likely to click on things like a funny dancing hamster), which (to everyone's surprise) are people using Microsoft products.
Not to mention the fact that many clients in linux are out dated. Some only support text mode, and don't include a mime decoder.
If linux was in microsoft's place, we would see similar problems.
MS has repeatedly shown that despite all their resources, they can't produce anything but crap, and in the long run they will fail.
Think about this:
Microsoft has a history of embracing and then extending. They could just as easily do it to linux. interopability with windows could also be included (run windows/linux apps natively), and the average joe user would really never know the difference (they could care less if software is open or closed).
The web has been "corporatized", so there is little room for little guys
I disagree completly.
Domain names are relatively cheap ($15-$35 a year). Bandwidth is pretty cheap (co-loc. for $100-$300 a month even cheaper than this if you don't need as much bandwidth).
The internet has become as popular as it has, because the "little guy" can just put up his own website, pop a couple of ads around the internet, and be in business.
For example, in all P2P networks (Gnutella, Freenet) it's your machine that is the server - you just need a pipe and an address.
I don't think I would trust buying something from someone off of a P2P network.
We just need to be able to connect to each other.
you post seems to have nothing to with the "little guy" and more to do with you being able to get free music,files, and movies.
You see, Free Software does not really have to care about marketshare in the small. Wall Street is not measuring us each quarter. And if I can't finish it, because I don't know how or don't have time, my eventual sucessor will. Or my sucessor's sucessor. Who cares?
This is one of the main reasons there are many bug-ridden, inferior,applications written for linux. Im not saying it isn't true for windows, but when a programmer works on an application with his monthly spending cash in mind,they will usually put the time and effort into fixing those last minute bugs. (not to mention the fact that people will want their refund. With Open-Source, there is no "refund" If you are not a programmer, you are stuck, because there is no obligation either).
For instance, my boss was looking around for a good, free POS (point-of-sales) system. I suggested linux. I found, what I thought was a good one, compiled it on X-windows/kde, and started using it. Little did I know, that the author had only built it for a specific purpose. It crashed half the time, and it was written half-assed.
I have found the above to be the case in many linux apps. Some are very well-designed (apache,bind come to mind), but for the most part, a limited number of people working on an application (3 or 4) is better than source that is updated by anyone and everyone who know how to use printf().
Wow! Did you think of that response all by your self? Or was it on a M$ press release somewhere? Why are Linux Advocates called Zealots by M$ zealots when the Linux Advocates are no more aggressive than the M$ zealots are?
acceptable => M$ is great, everything else sucks, you suck because you don't use M$. All hail Bill Gates!
zealot => Linux is great, M$ causes us problems that we like to complain about
Most people who use microsoft products don't get religious about it. Just the fact that there is a slashdot (there are no sites dedicated to microsft zealoutry, with biased news stories), proves that linux zealouts are more prevalent and agressive on the internet, than microsoft zealouts.
right, because microsoft FORCED 100 million people to buy their product and LIKE it.
Linux with those Christian missionaries stuck in Afghanistan
I think comparing software to any religion is ill founded. Software is software. You shouldn't get religious about it, just use what gets the job done more effectively.
"no direction" is the sole purpose of the open source movement. If Linux had direction or focus, there would be standards, and this would be considered "conforming", which is against what it stands for. Linux is good as a server, but no FUD in the world can lead me to believe that it can beat windows in the desktop market. This of course, isn't forever, but will continue, until the desktop aspect of linux matures.
Centralization isn' always a bad thing. As a sysadmin, if I find out my linux box isn't updated with all the correct pastches, I would like a central location to find all available updates. (I don't like hunting all over the internet, trying to find a half-assed created patch, that requires me to re-compile the kernal to use). I think this is why many companies choose to use windowsNT. The money is worth the time, in the LONG run.
I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.
ever heard of wine? Why aren't people asking: I wonder if there are any microsoft EULA violations going on.
answer: Hypocrisy.
Re:No, this is scary, not funny. I mean that.
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 0
if it was a minority that was complaining before, it shouldn't have mattered, because it must not have been that big of a problem. Napster was on every new channel/newspaper (time magazine) you can think of. That is why there are so many people complaining about the RIAA now. The ability to "pirate" their material was amplified 10 fold, so that even the average joe blow user could get their hands on free music.
Even so, IRC has been out for YEARS before napster, including FSERVES with a proliferation of "pirated" music/software. The record industry and the BSA have shut these servers down left and right, but still, there was never a real outcry until napster.
It's just human nature. This is going to happen with anything. (It's the same reason people hate LARS from metallica, yet he's not passing laws that impede on our freedom). When you are getting something for free, and someone takes it away, and makes you pay for it, you are going to get pissed off. (even trying to legitimize it)
The record industry's control over their own music is identical to certain software licenses on the internet. I hate to get off topic here, but think about this: Why should things like the GNU software license be followed, if a person who uses another license (copyright) is considered wrong. It would equate to me taking gnu sotware, and using for my own commerical gain in a closed source project. People in the slashdot community would be up-in-arms, even getting the law against me. Sounds JUST like what the RIAA is doing.
I will admit, the RIAA has taken it too far with their DMCA and SSCA, but they do deserve some control over their own property.
Re:No, this is scary, not funny. I mean that.
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 0
You really don't have any clue about what the Revolution was about, do you?
It was about your freedom. This freedom includes the freedom to use your computer in any manner that doesn't harm anyone else. They were so clear about this they made sure even the thickest man on the US could understand how important this fact is to America -- they even made sure that you can own guns, the only purpose of which is to kill.
Canada, however, was a little less extereme. Our guaranteed freedoms pale in comparison to yours, yet strangely we have more digital freedoms! I can even hack your satellite TV services without fear of reprisal! Heck, the Canadian government even allows me to walk over to my neighbours house and burn copies of any of their original CDs I like! Really!
Why does America accept having less freedoms than the country they fought against so long ago? Don't you want to be the freest country in the world again? Or do you let the RIAA destroy what your forefathers gave their lives to protect?
The laws the RIAA are trying to get passed, and FILE-SHARING on the internet are two separate issues. I am talking about the latter, rather than the former. I believe that people should be prosecuted for sharing copyrighted materials, BUT the new, strict laws (such as the DMCA,SSCA,etc.) are wrong. The music industry is intitled to protecting their investment. It's equivalent to a software license.
Besides that, the RIAA doesn't make the music! Find out who our enemy is before you support them with your vitriol. I want to pay the artists more than they have ever made through the pathetic rotting carcass of a business the RIAA is. They won't let me. Whenever an artist tries to let me pay them more than the RIAA would the RIAA shoves a contract up the musician's ass.
That and most have better things to do than seek out every single artist (however, I suppose I don't -- but I get my music for free legally -- read lower). But that seriously cannot cost the majority of my money put down on the CD.
>if you really think the RIAA is raping you, stop buying/sharing their music.
It isn't their friggin music (except in a weak legal sense)! They didn't make it, they didn't encourage it (unless you count shitty fabricated groups like NSync) and their only business is a mob-like racket to get a product from point A to point A.1
They do virtually nothing (apart from hyping up shitty boybands) yet recieve the largest part of your dollar spent on music.
I think you have to learn a little something about the business world. Artists go to the RIAA by CHOICE, not FORCE. When they sign a contract, they know FULL well that their music is now mostly owned by another "partner".
a recording company does provide a service: Marketing and studio time for starters. (do you think these things come cheap?)
If I were a musician I'd be angry that I can't release music myself and expect to "make it". The RIAA has the market so monopolized artists are pawns to their practices.
Have you heard of something called the INTERNET?
If you worked like the RIAA does, I'd sue the hell out of you for doing nothing and then overcharging for your non-product. If you work as hard as a good full time musician does I'd pay you very well.
If you ran a cartel on your service just to ensure that I had to pay you (and you only) to get through to your "suppliers" I'd say you work like a drug dealer (or a diamond dealer) and I'd get the government on your ass [Thanks EU! Now can you do something about DeBeers?].
Aside from the fact that the above is a "no-no" in speechmaking (a little rule about life: Practice what you preach), it does seem a little strange that no-one was complaining about this issue until the beginning of napster. People were fine paying $10-15 dollars for a CD, until they were getting it for free, and it was taken away.
Re:No, this is scary, not funny. I mean that.
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 0
All true, but the RIAA is going to have to learn at some point that they can't go to war against their customers. No business can. The RIAA "hackers" are never going to be a match for the true freedom-of-information kind of hackers that are their antithesis. The RIAA can go to war, but even with their great resources, they will never win, and for the same reasons the America is here today. The American Revolution was fought against a larger and better equipped British army. A large part of the reason for the American victory was that the Americans were fighting out of principle...to get what they thought was right...to not be taken advantage of. Imperialist Britain was fighting for money, nothing more (well, little more anyway).
comparing the RIAA keeping pirates from swapping music, and the american revolution is the biggest joke i've heard today. The american revolution was about british control of our every day life. The RIAA is about getting totalcontrol of their business investments. (IE. the artists/music).
People swapping music is kind of like the terrorists that bombed the world trade towers (kind of a bad comparison, im not claiming copyright infringers have anything to do with terrorists) they HATE america, yet lived here for months, enjoying our strip clubs and bars. Need I mention the fact that there are people by the thousands trying to get into the U.S. each day.
People swapping music HATE the RIAA, yet continue to "steal" the music. Why? because it's sounds great! If the music wasn't worth something, why steal it?
It's kinda like a "forced" gnu license for music, except you're not getting the owner's permission.
if you really think the RIAA is raping you, stop buying/sharing their music. If the answer is no, then it must mean the cost is reasonable.
People who want to listen to music are fighting to be able to have the freedom to do just that. Anyone who thinks that Metallica should still get paid for something that they recorded in a studio 20 years ago probably doesn't have the sense to know that they are being taken advantage of anyway.
Really......I guess people who did a job 2 weeks ago shouldn't get paid either. Point being, just because they recorded something 20 years ago doesn't mean EVERYONE has heard it already.
as for the hacking laws..Let me just say that I think that all the laws that the RIAA has or has tried to get passed are wrong, but if they did the equivalent of what file-sharing users are doing, they would D.o.S any copyright infringer they found, without trying to legalize it.
improve stability and security, as well as save money
in the short-term, linux looks like it will save money, be more secure, and more stable. If you look at it in the long-term, it is a much different picture.
1) an applications stability is only dependent on how well it was designed and created. This could change at any time, and to say it will always be STABLE, is FUD.
2) security. If they install linux on all their systems, and no-one is there to install patches, it won't be any more secure that an un-patched IIS.
3)money. Sure linux/opensource is good because you can alter sourcecode, change things,etc.,etc, but do you actually think government organizations in any country are going to want to hire Sys-admins AND programmers? This cost alone could be more than the MS licensing fees.
What governments organizations really want is a cheaper version of MS windows. (good hardware support, easy to use, cheap) They could care less if it is open source or not.
I hate to tell you this, but that doesn't prove anything about the security of a linux box. You could say the same thing about windows...the only reason it's insecure, is because the person using it doesn't know what they are doing. Such as getting patches from Microsoft
The City of bojmir, the oldest and one of the largest cities in Switzerland, is planning on a switch to Linux in order to sav licensing fees from linux.
yeah it is, it's a flavor. (Linux is actually the Kernel that all of the flavors use).
And no Linux or BSD is as bad as NT when it comes to quality and waiting periods on patches.
Many people believe this, yet it actually isn't true. Let's say, for instance, there is a security flaw in corel linux. Dave smart user fixes it and puts a fix on his website. John sysadmin doesn't know about dave's website (nor does he trust any joe blow that claims he has a fix), he only looks at corel.com (or other respecting sites) for his fixes. Corel may take 2 weeks, or it may take 2 months to actually get a fix for this flaw, hence taking just as long as Microsoft to actually patch the problem. You should take a look at the slashdot article, from about a month ago, about "cathedral" and "bazaar" OSS projects. The idea of many different programmers being able to fix a problem quickly and efficiently looks good on paper, but reality leaves much to be desired.
BIND != Linux
Is that kind of like IIS != windows?
Im not a microsoft advocate, Im just sick of all the linux FUD.
Now, if you're one of those companies that has lost a lot of 'good men' to rule 1, perhaps you should not use Microsoft products? Perhaps they're not everything the Microsoft rep told you they would be...
and use what in replace of an M$ product? Linux? Linux is just as bad as NT, when it comes to security holes (if you don't patch them). See Redhat. If not viruses like nimbda, worse things like r00t exploits and D.O.S attacks. I can bet if someone were to write a virus, like nimbda, for Linux, we would have a big problem. (not as bad as MS, because there are far fewer linux boxes in the internet). The problem is, many flavors of linux are insecure, right out of the box. The key is finding a good SysAdmin..
If that were the case, people would be getting a lot more for free. They aren't becuase most things are priced at a point where pirating them is not worth the trouble
Such as "pirated" software I see on the internet that, in the store, is worth $20.
Average out the average cost per song on the average CD and you will get something close to that. So, to answer your question, the RIAA thinks it is fair. Personally, I think that $1 is too much. Some might think that it is too little. Obviously, enough people agree that spending $12-$16 to hear the one song that they want is too much. Thus, Napster.
This would be like deriving the cost of a piece of artwork through the actual cost of the paint.
Slashdot Mirror
OSS doesn't have licencing costs (which are a huge factor and headache for smaller companies), and are (generally) more reliable with respect to issues such as viruses, worms and trojans.
only because 2% of people are actually using the products on the internet. Most trojan,virus and worm writers try to infect the largest amount of users possible (and most likely to click on things like a funny dancing hamster), which (to everyone's surprise) are people using Microsoft products.
Not to mention the fact that many clients in linux are out dated. Some only support text mode, and don't include a mime decoder.
If linux was in microsoft's place, we would see similar problems.
MS has repeatedly shown that despite all their resources, they can't produce anything but crap, and in the long run they will fail.
Think about this:
Microsoft has a history of embracing and then extending. They could just as easily do it to linux. interopability with windows could also be included (run windows/linux apps natively), and the average joe user would really never know the difference (they could care less if software is open or closed).
The web has been "corporatized", so there is little room for little guys
I disagree completly.
Domain names are relatively cheap ($15-$35 a year). Bandwidth is pretty cheap (co-loc. for $100-$300 a month even cheaper than this if you don't need as much bandwidth).
The internet has become as popular as it has, because the "little guy" can just put up his own website, pop a couple of ads around the internet, and be in business.
For example, in all P2P networks (Gnutella, Freenet) it's your machine that is the server - you just need a pipe and an address.
I don't think I would trust buying something from someone off of a P2P network.
We just need to be able to connect to each other.
you post seems to have nothing to with the "little guy" and more to do with you being able to get free music,files, and movies.
Shared source, as in the manner they "shared" the BSD IP code? Laughable.
You mean when they LICENSED the code from BSD????
Get your facts straight before you post, and stop spreading FUD.
I think the only way linux will truly win over the desktop platform, is if they can create total seamless compatibility with windows executables.
if that's your definition of a free market, why even use the GNU license? I could violate it, and no government would be there to stop me.
Why not just use straight public domain?
You see, Free Software does not really have to care about marketshare in the small. Wall Street is not measuring us each quarter. And if I can't finish it, because I don't know how or don't have time, my eventual sucessor will. Or my sucessor's sucessor. Who cares?
This is one of the main reasons there are many bug-ridden, inferior,applications written for linux. Im not saying it isn't true for windows, but when a programmer works on an application with his monthly spending cash in mind,they will usually put the time and effort into fixing those last minute bugs. (not to mention the fact that people will want their refund. With Open-Source, there is no "refund" If you are not a programmer, you are stuck, because there is no obligation either).
For instance, my boss was looking around for a good, free POS (point-of-sales) system. I suggested linux. I found, what I thought was a good one, compiled it on X-windows/kde, and started using it. Little did I know, that the author had only built it for a specific purpose. It crashed half the time, and it was written half-assed.
I have found the above to be the case in many linux apps. Some are very well-designed (apache,bind come to mind), but for the most part, a limited number of people working on an application (3 or 4) is better than source that is updated by anyone and everyone who know how to use printf().
why should it matter if my standards are open or closed? As a business, I should also have the right to choose.
Wow! Did you think of that response all by your self? Or was it on a M$ press release somewhere? Why are Linux Advocates called Zealots by M$ zealots when the Linux Advocates are no more aggressive than the M$ zealots are?
acceptable => M$ is great, everything else sucks, you suck because you don't use M$. All hail Bill Gates!
zealot => Linux is great, M$ causes us problems that we like to complain about
Most people who use microsoft products don't get religious about it. Just the fact that there is a slashdot (there are no sites dedicated to microsft zealoutry, with biased news stories), proves that linux zealouts are more prevalent and agressive on the internet, than microsoft zealouts.
also, microsoft.com is not an example.
right, because microsoft FORCED 100 million people to buy their product and LIKE it.
Linux with those Christian missionaries stuck in Afghanistan
I think comparing software to any religion is ill founded. Software is software. You shouldn't get religious about it, just use what gets the job done more effectively.
"no direction" is the sole purpose of the open source movement. If Linux had direction or focus, there would be standards, and this would be considered "conforming", which is against what it stands for. Linux is good as a server, but no FUD in the world can lead me to believe that it can beat windows in the desktop market. This of course, isn't forever, but will continue, until the desktop aspect of linux matures.
Centralization isn' always a bad thing. As a sysadmin, if I find out my linux box isn't updated with all the correct pastches, I would like a central location to find all available updates. (I don't like hunting all over the internet, trying to find a half-assed created patch, that requires me to re-compile the kernal to use). I think this is why many companies choose to use windowsNT. The money is worth the time, in the LONG run.
I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.
ever heard of wine? Why aren't people asking: I wonder if there are any microsoft EULA violations going on.
answer: Hypocrisy.
if it was a minority that was complaining before, it shouldn't have mattered, because it must not have been that big of a problem. Napster was on every new channel/newspaper (time magazine) you can think of. That is why there are so many people complaining about the RIAA now. The ability to "pirate" their material was amplified 10 fold, so that even the average joe blow user could get their hands on free music.
Even so, IRC has been out for YEARS before napster, including FSERVES with a proliferation of "pirated" music/software. The record industry and the BSA have shut these servers down left and right, but still, there was never a real outcry until napster.
It's just human nature. This is going to happen with anything. (It's the same reason people hate LARS from metallica, yet he's not passing laws that impede on our freedom). When you are getting something for free, and someone takes it away, and makes you pay for it, you are going to get pissed off. (even trying to legitimize it)
The record industry's control over their own music is identical to certain software licenses on the internet. I hate to get off topic here, but think about this: Why should things like the GNU software license be followed, if a person who uses another license (copyright) is considered wrong. It would equate to me taking gnu sotware, and using for my own commerical gain in a closed source project. People in the slashdot community would be up-in-arms, even getting the law against me. Sounds JUST like what the RIAA is doing.
I will admit, the RIAA has taken it too far with their DMCA and SSCA, but they do deserve some control over their own property.
You really don't have any clue about what the Revolution was about, do you?
It was about your freedom. This freedom includes the freedom to use your computer in any manner that doesn't harm anyone else. They were so clear about this they made sure even the thickest man on the US could understand how important this fact is to America -- they even made sure that you can own guns, the only purpose of which is to kill.
Canada, however, was a little less extereme. Our guaranteed freedoms pale in comparison to yours, yet strangely we have more digital freedoms! I can even hack your satellite TV services without fear of reprisal! Heck, the Canadian government even allows me to walk over to my neighbours house and burn copies of any of their original CDs I like! Really!
Why does America accept having less freedoms than the country they fought against so long ago? Don't you want to be the freest country in the world again? Or do you let the RIAA destroy what your forefathers gave their lives to protect?
The laws the RIAA are trying to get passed, and FILE-SHARING on the internet are two separate issues. I am talking about the latter, rather than the former. I believe that people should be prosecuted for sharing copyrighted materials, BUT the new, strict laws (such as the DMCA,SSCA,etc.) are wrong. The music industry is intitled to protecting their investment. It's equivalent to a software license.
Besides that, the RIAA doesn't make the music! Find out who our enemy is before you support them with your vitriol. I want to pay the artists more than they have ever made through the pathetic rotting carcass of a business the RIAA is. They won't let me. Whenever an artist tries to let me pay them more than the RIAA would the RIAA shoves a contract up the musician's ass.
That and most have better things to do than seek out every single artist (however, I suppose I don't -- but I get my music for free legally -- read lower). But that seriously cannot cost the majority of my money put down on the CD.
>if you really think the RIAA is raping you, stop buying/sharing their music.
It isn't their friggin music (except in a weak legal sense)! They didn't make it, they didn't encourage it (unless you count shitty fabricated groups like NSync) and their only business is a mob-like racket to get a product from point A to point A.1
They do virtually nothing (apart from hyping up shitty boybands) yet recieve the largest part of your dollar spent on music.
I think you have to learn a little something about the business world. Artists go to the RIAA by CHOICE, not FORCE. When they sign a contract, they know FULL well that their music is now mostly owned by another "partner".
a recording company does provide a service: Marketing and studio time for starters. (do you think these things come cheap?)
If I were a musician I'd be angry that I can't release music myself and expect to "make it". The RIAA has the market so monopolized artists are pawns to their practices.
Have you heard of something called the INTERNET?
If you worked like the RIAA does, I'd sue the hell out of you for doing nothing and then overcharging for your non-product. If you work as hard as a good full time musician does I'd pay you very well.
If you ran a cartel on your service just to ensure that I had to pay you (and you only) to get through to your "suppliers" I'd say you work like a drug dealer (or a diamond dealer) and I'd get the government on your ass [Thanks EU! Now can you do something about DeBeers?].
Aside from the fact that the above is a "no-no" in speechmaking (a little rule about life: Practice what you preach), it does seem a little strange that no-one was complaining about this issue until the beginning of napster. People were fine paying $10-15 dollars for a CD, until they were getting it for free, and it was taken away.
All true, but the RIAA is going to have to learn at some point that they can't go to war against their customers. No business can. The RIAA "hackers" are never going to be a match for the true freedom-of-information kind of hackers that are their antithesis. The RIAA can go to war, but even with their great resources, they will never win, and for the same reasons the America is here today. The American Revolution was fought against a larger and better equipped British army. A large part of the reason for the American victory was that the Americans were fighting out of principle...to get what they thought was right...to not be taken advantage of. Imperialist Britain was fighting for money, nothing more (well, little more anyway).
comparing the RIAA keeping pirates from swapping music, and the american revolution is the biggest joke i've heard today. The american revolution was about british control of our every day life. The RIAA is about getting totalcontrol of their business investments. (IE. the artists/music).
People swapping music is kind of like the terrorists that bombed the world trade towers (kind of a bad comparison, im not claiming copyright infringers have anything to do with terrorists) they HATE america, yet lived here for months, enjoying our strip clubs and bars. Need I mention the fact that there are people by the thousands trying to get into the U.S. each day.
People swapping music HATE the RIAA, yet continue to "steal" the music. Why? because it's sounds great! If the music wasn't worth something, why steal it?
It's kinda like a "forced" gnu license for music, except you're not getting the owner's permission.
if you really think the RIAA is raping you, stop buying/sharing their music. If the answer is no, then it must mean the cost is reasonable.
People who want to listen to music are fighting to be able to have the freedom to do just that. Anyone who thinks that Metallica should still get paid for something that they recorded in a studio 20 years ago probably doesn't have the sense to know that they are being taken advantage of anyway.
Really......I guess people who did a job 2 weeks ago shouldn't get paid either. Point being, just because they recorded something 20 years ago doesn't mean EVERYONE has heard it already.
as for the hacking laws..Let me just say that I think that all the laws that the RIAA has or has tried to get passed are wrong, but if they did the equivalent of what file-sharing users are doing, they would D.o.S any copyright infringer they found, without trying to legalize it.
improve stability and security, as well as save money
in the short-term, linux looks like it will save money, be more secure, and more stable. If you look at it in the long-term, it is a much different picture.
1) an applications stability is only dependent on how well it was designed and created. This could change at any time, and to say it will always be STABLE, is FUD.
2) security. If they install linux on all their systems, and no-one is there to install patches, it won't be any more secure that an un-patched IIS.
3)money. Sure linux/opensource is good because you can alter sourcecode, change things,etc.,etc, but do you actually think government organizations in any country are going to want to hire Sys-admins AND programmers? This cost alone could be more than the MS licensing fees.
What governments organizations really want is a cheaper version of MS windows. (good hardware support, easy to use, cheap) They could care less if it is open source or not.
tho apparently you can fork over $1 a month to keep that litter off your desktop. Pretty sneaky if you ask me...
what's so sneaky about it? Advertisers aren't paying as much as they were and Ez-board is giving you an incentive to buy their service.
Everything on the Internet, in one way or another, costs money to operate.
how so?
They may be back-stabbing fuckers, but the artists do SIGN the CONTRACT knowing that fact.
want someone to blame? blame the artists for being dumb enough to sign a contract they never read.
I hate to tell you this, but that doesn't prove anything about the security of a linux box. You could say the same thing about windows...the only reason it's insecure, is because the person using it doesn't know what they are doing. Such as getting patches from Microsoft
The City of bojmir, the oldest and one of the largest cities in Switzerland, is planning on a switch to Linux in order to sav licensing fees from linux.
if you don't release your code, you are afraid of people looking at your poorly programmed code
sounds almost as truthful as:
if you don't let the government have the keys to your encryption, you must have something to hide.
licensing shouldn't matter to you, it's "free" as in speech, remember?
RedHad != Linux
yeah it is, it's a flavor. (Linux is actually the Kernel that all of the flavors use).
And no Linux or BSD is as bad as NT when it comes to quality and waiting periods on patches.
Many people believe this, yet it actually isn't true. Let's say, for instance, there is a security flaw in corel linux. Dave smart user fixes it and puts a fix on his website. John sysadmin doesn't know about dave's website (nor does he trust any joe blow that claims he has a fix), he only looks at corel.com (or other respecting sites) for his fixes. Corel may take 2 weeks, or it may take 2 months to actually get a fix for this flaw, hence taking just as long as Microsoft to actually patch the problem. You should take a look at the slashdot article, from about a month ago, about "cathedral" and "bazaar" OSS projects. The idea of many different programmers being able to fix a problem quickly and efficiently looks good on paper, but reality leaves much to be desired.
BIND != Linux
Is that kind of like IIS != windows?
Im not a microsoft advocate, Im just sick of all the linux FUD.
Now, if you're one of those companies that has lost a lot of 'good men' to rule 1, perhaps you should not use Microsoft products? Perhaps they're not everything the Microsoft rep told you they would be...
and use what in replace of an M$ product? Linux? Linux is just as bad as NT, when it comes to security holes (if you don't patch them). See Redhat. If not viruses like nimbda, worse things like r00t exploits and D.O.S attacks. I can bet if someone were to write a virus, like nimbda, for Linux, we would have a big problem. (not as bad as MS, because there are far fewer linux boxes in the internet). The problem is, many flavors of linux are insecure, right out of the box. The key is finding a good SysAdmin..
If that were the case, people would be getting a lot more for free. They aren't becuase most things are priced at a point where pirating them is not worth the trouble
Such as "pirated" software I see on the internet that, in the store, is worth $20.
Average out the average cost per song on the average CD and you will get something close to that. So, to answer your question, the RIAA thinks it is fair. Personally, I think that $1 is too much. Some might think that it is too little. Obviously, enough people agree that spending $12-$16 to hear the one song that they want is too much. Thus, Napster.
This would be like deriving the cost of a piece of artwork through the actual cost of the paint.