How is a judge ruling requiring de-indexing not censorship? The judge is saying that true and correct information can be decimated so as to achieve a government objective.
A Rolex replica doesn't perform like a Rolex under real conditions. For example Rolex has fantastic quality water seals and is safe to use under high pressure diving, or in the shower (which is rare for a watch). The fakes will not hold up to that kind of use.
It is illegal to engage in trademark infringement. It is illegal to sell goods known to be infringing. Goods engaging in trademark infringement can be seized, and often are without the merchant being compensated.
It is not illegal however to publish a directory of where one can find infringing goods. That's the analogy to the listing.
Yeah, actually your desktop does need to be managed, you do it by hand. Try managing 10,000 desktops and then we'll talk about why you might want management software.
That's not the only thing BES is for. Blackberry allows for some rather advanced configuration. For example application management like you would with Windows desktops.
Yes they do. For example BES allows you to tie devices into a corporate PBX so that you can have a dial by name directory that works for cells. So for example you call Ken Black on your BlackBerry the blackberry does a lookup and sees that Ken is using an office phone in Seattle and dials you directly to that. The next day you call the same name and it sees he's in his car. That's not forwarding BTW those are direct connection sending signals back to the PSTN.
Apple and Google don't have anything remotely like that. Many of the PBX vendors have that sort of software but (at least 2 years ago) Blackberry had the best implementation of it.
If you learned Alice I think you would be surprised how much programming you actually know. Alice has classes that have methods that take parameters. You also know how to string together methods to get a desired result . That's programming, at least OO programming.
The only thing you would need to do to use another OO language is get familiar with much more generic classes and string them together. Try Visual Basic, LiveCode... there are adult languages that have the same kinds of quick feedback loops.
There are plenty of good public school programs for teaching computation. Alice for example came from work on Middle School computer programming and was able to teach creativity and discovery and basic concepts in programming. If your local schools suck run for school board.
There is usually a variety of flus. Also people would be much much more careful if there were a lethal flu going around. If we assume that something like 1m get a particular Flu strand in the US I'd doubt it goes as high as 50k. Then comes the treatment issue.
Just pointing out the summary here is a bit incorrect. The summary indicates the virus is 50% lethal (I assume with no treatment) and likely can mutate to airborne contagion in humans. To kill 50% of the people on the planet:
a) We would need 100% infection b) There would need to be no treatment of humans.
That's not to say an 50% lethal flu isn't worth worrying about but the summary is exaggerating the concern.
You may be right about StarOffice. Though WordPerfect was around. For me it was having Latex2e (which was hard to get going on Solaris), X (though X could be painful), command line utilities particularly the shells, there were some games actually like Sokoban already. I remember Netscape working on some distributions. If you used Unix software, Linux by 95/96 was pretty good.
Vim, Elm/Pine, netnews... were not scientific apps.
What I was saying elsewhere on this is that Linux packages were in bigger groups like: TeX, X-Windows. There weren't thousands of packages rather dozens. It could be tricky dealing with software dependencies on software that didn't come from the distribution. But that was the case with all Unixes.
Reread the message. SCO case was a claim about the derivation of Linux being Linus' Unix. And that was in their initial filing. Linix was part of why they were wrong.
OK... well this is a more general comment. GP was just arguing that Apple should be subject to the same rules and I was commenting that legally they weren't.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I would have much less of a problem with Microsoft having a monopoly if they got it by providing a superior product for less, rather than through sneaky underhanded tactics and FUD. At least then we would have a superior product at a potentially grossly inflated price.
I'm not sure they didn't have a superior product for less.
1) MSDOS was better than CP/M and helped people make the transition to faster machines and more memory (1m RAM+ROM). And in the language department, GW-BASIC was one of the better basics around.
2) IBM was attempting to use their operating system to lock people into Micro Channel architecture, which while arguably better was much more expensive and would have allowed IBM to tax hardware and prevent the rise of inexpensive clones. Once they made OS/2 generic it was good, but as a company IBM lacked direction and zigged and zagged, their divisions frequently working at cross purposes. While despite that I personally would have selected OS/2 as the future, Microsoft Office was the key to desktop productivity and given its availability, I can see Windows 3.0 / 3.1 / Workgroups won and people were not being irrational.
Further OS/2 was a Microsoft product in the early years. And during the time when OS/2 was at its strongest it contained a lot of Microsoft Windows code, which IBM would have had to play licensing fees on. So even if OS/2 had won....
3) Visual Basic was a huge productivity boost in terms of allowing mediocre programmers to create GUI Business apps.
4) Windows 2000 was if you cared about compatibility a terrific business operation system. Windows XP brought those advantages to home and small business. I think Windows XP closed the windows that Linux needed to win on the desktop over the Windows 95/98/ME. With XP Microsoft was no longer technologically behind Linux.
Which leaves us to today. Other than OS/2 I don't know when Microsoft really could have lost. I don't think they got there by FUD. I think they were scummier than they had to be, but ultimately I think that cost them in their ability to expand. Had they been a more benign monopoly I suspect their dominance could have gone much further.
____
As for monopolies the problem is that substitution creates economic drag. Further monopolies have tremendous power that competitive firms do not, their policies become little different than government regulations unless we are in a period when the government is very strong. Our society is based on competitive firms with low substitution costs. Changing that equation is a negative in terms of our whole economic and regulatory structure.
Not much reason to make the shift on a router. The point is when their are multiple programs not identifying themselves properly. Single purpose devices with a tiny number of programs running don't have the problem the journel was meant to solve.
The article is basically saying that green energy does bad stuff though in lesser amounts than traditional energy. Which means that as consumption grows bad stuff must grow too. It isn't really an argument against green energy so much as against energy utilization growth which is incredibly popular.
Most likely there were multiple people. This was an institutional act, and the institution is taking responsibility. Generally having people take responsibility is a way for institutions to scapegoat and duck the structural problems. So I couldn't disagree more. Who cares about going after some director who gave the order?
First off I'm not sure how limited computers prove the superiority of Linux in 1995 to Windows NT and OS/2.
As far as the facts. I don't know the average memory in 1995, but the memory shortage in 1993 was over by 1995. I suspect the average computer sold was probably in the 16-32 meg range. Good computers, were more like 64m. The issues with 4-8mb that had been a hinderance in 1991 etc... for OS/2 and windows were well passed. So for example I got a 386-40 in 1990 with 4 megs and boosted it to 20m in 1991. I got a Pentium-60 with 8m in late 1993, boosted up and by 1996 I had a laptop with 64m.
No question Linux was (and is) much better for below average computers. Linux works wonderfully on older hardware. No question not being in graphical mode was a plus in earlier years. But if I do go with older computers in 1995 then on systems that couldn't possibly run Linux extended mode DOS was excellent, or for that matters OS/2. Desqview/Qemm was a terrific multi-taker for something like a 386sx with 4m.
It was your "no software" comment I was responding. I grant that in general in 1995 Linux was worthless for most Win95 users. Most Windows95 users made heavy use of office productivity applications that didn't exist on Linux. There wasn't a good spreadsheet for over another decade. So I would just disagree with the "no software" part... and refine it a bit.
As for being asked for a lib... I can't comment. I didn't have that problem much with Linuxes and generally only after I'd corrupted the system with deletions. Certainly compared to Solaris where I had that kind of issue all the time. I'm not sure whether you've used other Unixes but something like Tru64 UNIX Unix is still worse than Linux was in 1995.
Not really in 1995. It really wasn't Win95 users switching over. There was a belief that outreach needed to happen, and Linux began focusing on outreach to Windows power users but it really wasn't happening yet. Remember it wouldn't be until 1996 that anyone tried to create a Linux GUI. But it still was the case that Linux users were people who either had Unix experience or wanted Unix experience. Certainly in 1994 there was no Windows crossover everyone (essentially) was coming from some Unix background (SunOS, Irix, SCO, Minix, Xenix..). This is why I was objecting to your comment about no software. Linux had the kinds of things that people who used Unixes wanted (mostly). It didn't have some stuff like Oracle, Autocad, 3D rendering programs but it had lots of the core Unix utilities. So I think you should be picturing a Windows system admin looking for an alternative to IIS/SQL Server not someone using Word. The most user friendly distribution was Caldera network desktop and that pitched squarely as SCO users and LAN administrators.
Linux was at that point not pitching to the Windows power user. They were being considered. As for dependencies... honestly I think you are overestimating the complexity. Remember this was the day of DLL hell on Windows. Windows installs could go wrong and hose your system. Conversely there just weren't as many levels. I would say that a vast majority of Linux users had internet. And I'd agree that was not true of Windows users in general. Also Linux users bought CDs of distributions. I paid for RedHat and MetroX (a commercial Linux X server).
So in short:
1) There were office applications better than most Unixes. Certainly office productivity didn't hold a candle to Windows or Mac.
2) There was plenty of software for the user base they had. Stuff like Word compatibility wasn't the issue. People were excited about ABI which might bring over Unix apps.
3) For a Unix, LInux was already becoming unusually user friendly which is a far cry from what end users expected in desktop OSes. But it opened it up to Unix users (like myself) who couldn't admin. It didn't open it up enough for the Windows crowd yet. But... this was starting to be talked about as a goal.
4) In 1995 the comparison would have been to Windows NT and OS/2. The focus on Windows 95/98/ME came on later years.
Which are all things the federal government could overcome. From budget / equipment, to policy the federal government could help. There is no reason they couldn't write standard procedures.
There were binary file format converters, a 1980s strategy that most power users in 1995 could handle. There were less formats then and they were simpler. But.doc was becoming ever more complex. And of course you couldn't do much to convert macros. But really you have to understand that in 1995 Linux users didn't make heavy use of desktop productivity software. They still don't. If you did make heavy use of desktop productivity software, you weren't on a Unix of any sort.
Oh and IIRC there were no package managers at the time, so if you wanted to install a program you had to get a bunch of dependencies. And then a bunch of dependencies of those dependencies and so on...
Yes and no. Distributions had "base" and then usually wrapped things into pretty big groups like "TeX" or "Kernel Source". With only a few tiers it worked out. Complex dependencies were still there. But again this is no worse than any other Unix. None of them did automatic dependency resolution that was a Linux innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
How is a judge ruling requiring de-indexing not censorship? The judge is saying that true and correct information can be decimated so as to achieve a government objective.
A Rolex replica doesn't perform like a Rolex under real conditions. For example Rolex has fantastic quality water seals and is safe to use under high pressure diving, or in the shower (which is rare for a watch). The fakes will not hold up to that kind of use.
It is illegal to engage in trademark infringement. It is illegal to sell goods known to be infringing. Goods engaging in trademark infringement can be seized, and often are without the merchant being compensated.
It is not illegal however to publish a directory of where one can find infringing goods. That's the analogy to the listing.
Yeah, actually your desktop does need to be managed, you do it by hand. Try managing 10,000 desktops and then we'll talk about why you might want management software.
That's not the only thing BES is for. Blackberry allows for some rather advanced configuration. For example application management like you would with Windows desktops.
Yes they do. For example BES allows you to tie devices into a corporate PBX so that you can have a dial by name directory that works for cells. So for example you call Ken Black on your BlackBerry the blackberry does a lookup and sees that Ken is using an office phone in Seattle and dials you directly to that. The next day you call the same name and it sees he's in his car. That's not forwarding BTW those are direct connection sending signals back to the PSTN.
Apple and Google don't have anything remotely like that. Many of the PBX vendors have that sort of software but (at least 2 years ago) Blackberry had the best implementation of it.
If you learned Alice I think you would be surprised how much programming you actually know. Alice has classes that have methods that take parameters. You also know how to string together methods to get a desired result . That's programming, at least OO programming.
The only thing you would need to do to use another OO language is get familiar with much more generic classes and string them together. Try Visual Basic, LiveCode... there are adult languages that have the same kinds of quick feedback loops.
There are plenty of good public school programs for teaching computation. Alice for example came from work on Middle School computer programming and was able to teach creativity and discovery and basic concepts in programming. If your local schools suck run for school board.
Good research! OK so the exaggerations probably go back multiple levels.
There is usually a variety of flus. Also people would be much much more careful if there were a lethal flu going around. If we assume that something like 1m get a particular Flu strand in the US I'd doubt it goes as high as 50k. Then comes the treatment issue.
Very very bad but not 1/2 the planet.
Just pointing out the summary here is a bit incorrect. The summary indicates the virus is 50% lethal (I assume with no treatment) and likely can mutate to airborne contagion in humans. To kill 50% of the people on the planet:
a) We would need 100% infection
b) There would need to be no treatment of humans.
That's not to say an 50% lethal flu isn't worth worrying about but the summary is exaggerating the concern.
You may be right about StarOffice. Though WordPerfect was around. For me it was having Latex2e (which was hard to get going on Solaris), X (though X could be painful), command line utilities particularly the shells, there were some games actually like Sokoban already. I remember Netscape working on some distributions. If you used Unix software, Linux by 95/96 was pretty good.
Vim, Elm/Pine, netnews... were not scientific apps.
What I was saying elsewhere on this is that Linux packages were in bigger groups like: TeX, X-Windows. There weren't thousands of packages rather dozens. It could be tricky dealing with software dependencies on software that didn't come from the distribution. But that was the case with all Unixes.
Yeah I'll get right on hunting through Linus' usenet postings from the 1990s to find a source so that an AC is convinced.
I did this research a decade ago. I'm not doing it again.
Reread the message. SCO case was a claim about the derivation of Linux being Linus' Unix. And that was in their initial filing. Linix was part of why they were wrong.
OK... well this is a more general comment. GP was just arguing that Apple should be subject to the same rules and I was commenting that legally they weren't.
I'm not sure they didn't have a superior product for less.
1) MSDOS was better than CP/M and helped people make the transition to faster machines and more memory (1m RAM+ROM). And in the language department, GW-BASIC was one of the better basics around.
2) IBM was attempting to use their operating system to lock people into Micro Channel architecture, which while arguably better was much more expensive and would have allowed IBM to tax hardware and prevent the rise of inexpensive clones. Once they made OS/2 generic it was good, but as a company IBM lacked direction and zigged and zagged, their divisions frequently working at cross purposes. While despite that I personally would have selected OS/2 as the future, Microsoft Office was the key to desktop productivity and given its availability, I can see Windows 3.0 / 3.1 / Workgroups won and people were not being irrational.
Further OS/2 was a Microsoft product in the early years. And during the time when OS/2 was at its strongest it contained a lot of Microsoft Windows code, which IBM would have had to play licensing fees on. So even if OS/2 had won....
3) Visual Basic was a huge productivity boost in terms of allowing mediocre programmers to create GUI Business apps.
4) Windows 2000 was if you cared about compatibility a terrific business operation system. Windows XP brought those advantages to home and small business. I think Windows XP closed the windows that Linux needed to win on the desktop over the Windows 95/98/ME. With XP Microsoft was no longer technologically behind Linux.
Which leaves us to today. Other than OS/2 I don't know when Microsoft really could have lost. I don't think they got there by FUD. I think they were scummier than they had to be, but ultimately I think that cost them in their ability to expand. Had they been a more benign monopoly I suspect their dominance could have gone much further.
____
As for monopolies the problem is that substitution creates economic drag. Further monopolies have tremendous power that competitive firms do not, their policies become little different than government regulations unless we are in a period when the government is very strong. Our society is based on competitive firms with low substitution costs. Changing that equation is a negative in terms of our whole economic and regulatory structure.
Not much reason to make the shift on a router. The point is when their are multiple programs not identifying themselves properly. Single purpose devices with a tiny number of programs running don't have the problem the journel was meant to solve.
Does it really take that long? I get quite a bit of new soil within months under a leaf pile or near burned wood.
The article is basically saying that green energy does bad stuff though in lesser amounts than traditional energy. Which means that as consumption grows bad stuff must grow too. It isn't really an argument against green energy so much as against energy utilization growth which is incredibly popular.
Most likely there were multiple people. This was an institutional act, and the institution is taking responsibility. Generally having people take responsibility is a way for institutions to scapegoat and duck the structural problems. So I couldn't disagree more. Who cares about going after some director who gave the order?
First off I'm not sure how limited computers prove the superiority of Linux in 1995 to Windows NT and OS/2.
As far as the facts. I don't know the average memory in 1995, but the memory shortage in 1993 was over by 1995. I suspect the average computer sold was probably in the 16-32 meg range. Good computers, were more like 64m. The issues with 4-8mb that had been a hinderance in 1991 etc... for OS/2 and windows were well passed. So for example I got a 386-40 in 1990 with 4 megs and boosted it to 20m in 1991. I got a Pentium-60 with 8m in late 1993, boosted up and by 1996 I had a laptop with 64m.
No question Linux was (and is) much better for below average computers. Linux works wonderfully on older hardware. No question not being in graphical mode was a plus in earlier years. But if I do go with older computers in 1995 then on systems that couldn't possibly run Linux extended mode DOS was excellent, or for that matters OS/2. Desqview/Qemm was a terrific multi-taker for something like a 386sx with 4m.
It was your "no software" comment I was responding. I grant that in general in 1995 Linux was worthless for most Win95 users. Most Windows95 users made heavy use of office productivity applications that didn't exist on Linux. There wasn't a good spreadsheet for over another decade. So I would just disagree with the "no software" part... and refine it a bit.
As for being asked for a lib... I can't comment. I didn't have that problem much with Linuxes and generally only after I'd corrupted the system with deletions. Certainly compared to Solaris where I had that kind of issue all the time. I'm not sure whether you've used other Unixes but something like Tru64 UNIX Unix is still worse than Linux was in 1995.
Not really in 1995. It really wasn't Win95 users switching over. There was a belief that outreach needed to happen, and Linux began focusing on outreach to Windows power users but it really wasn't happening yet. Remember it wouldn't be until 1996 that anyone tried to create a Linux GUI. But it still was the case that Linux users were people who either had Unix experience or wanted Unix experience. Certainly in 1994 there was no Windows crossover everyone (essentially) was coming from some Unix background (SunOS, Irix, SCO, Minix, Xenix..). This is why I was objecting to your comment about no software. Linux had the kinds of things that people who used Unixes wanted (mostly). It didn't have some stuff like Oracle, Autocad, 3D rendering programs but it had lots of the core Unix utilities. So I think you should be picturing a Windows system admin looking for an alternative to IIS/SQL Server not someone using Word. The most user friendly distribution was Caldera network desktop and that pitched squarely as SCO users and LAN administrators.
Linux was at that point not pitching to the Windows power user. They were being considered. As for dependencies... honestly I think you are overestimating the complexity. Remember this was the day of DLL hell on Windows. Windows installs could go wrong and hose your system. Conversely there just weren't as many levels. I would say that a vast majority of Linux users had internet. And I'd agree that was not true of Windows users in general. Also Linux users bought CDs of distributions. I paid for RedHat and MetroX (a commercial Linux X server).
So in short:
1) There were office applications better than most Unixes. Certainly office productivity didn't hold a candle to Windows or Mac.
2) There was plenty of software for the user base they had. Stuff like Word compatibility wasn't the issue. People were excited about ABI which might bring over Unix apps.
3) For a Unix, LInux was already becoming unusually user friendly which is a far cry from what end users expected in desktop OSes. But it opened it up to Unix users (like myself) who couldn't admin. It didn't open it up enough for the Windows crowd yet. But ... this was starting to be talked about as a goal.
4) In 1995 the comparison would have been to Windows NT and OS/2. The focus on Windows 95/98/ME came on later years.
Which are all things the federal government could overcome. From budget / equipment, to policy the federal government could help. There is no reason they couldn't write standard procedures.
There were binary file format converters, a 1980s strategy that most power users in 1995 could handle. There were less formats then and they were simpler. But .doc was becoming ever more complex. And of course you couldn't do much to convert macros. But really you have to understand that in 1995 Linux users didn't make heavy use of desktop productivity software. They still don't. If you did make heavy use of desktop productivity software, you weren't on a Unix of any sort.
Yes and no. Distributions had "base" and then usually wrapped things into pretty big groups like "TeX" or "Kernel Source". With only a few tiers it worked out. Complex dependencies were still there. But again this is no worse than any other Unix. None of them did automatic dependency resolution that was a Linux innovation.