There are basically 3 types of businesses that tried adoption:
1) Businesses that had never developed a Windows culture. Burlington Coat Factory, Pep Boys, Autozone.... They were able to switch easily. 2) Businesses with a tech culture that was windows based but were highly motivated. Oracle, IBM,... Some were failures and some successes. Generally failure. 3) Businesses with a standard end user culture but highly motivated. Midsized on down successes have been known, I don't know of any large corporate successes.
Windows embeds itself in so many places. Its very addictive to the enterprises and they find it harder then they ever imagined to kick the habit.
I agree. Their research division is amazing. If they implemented 10% of what came out of their research division they would have the coolest sites around.
OK then lets generalize to something like Godel's.
Given any definition of good, either a government has engaged in an act which qualifies or the definition would be rejected by no less than 99.9999% of the population.
And that holds true for any other human institution. So what? And in a similar vein individuals have no wisdom of their own, their wisdom comes from the cells that make them up.
I suggest you do a web search on whether the GPL is a contract. Open Source Business Conference, San Francisco, March 17, 2004; had a panal on this matter and opinions were heavily divided. The vast majority of lawyers believe that redistribution is a consideration since licenses have value generally under the law.
I agree with you on this, most lawyers agree that the GPL goes beyond copyright and asserts a contract. So far the FSF's position is that it is asserting rights under copyright law and not creating a contract. The reason being is that contract law, is more complex in terms of damage and breach while copyright law is simply; you can't copy unless you are licensed. So you can't just assume that point that there is a contract in place while at the same time using the FSF's reasoning as far as simplicity.
I don't know Australia law, so I have no opinion one way or the other. The Journal of the National Society for Computers, September 2002 Issue 49 specifically addressed this case for Australia and felt that the bare permission was so unambiguous in the case of the GPL that it wouldn't apply. In the US you have to declare a breach, and that's going to require preponderance of the evidence.
Now of course there is nothing to prevent intimidation using the threat of a suit. SCO was somewhat successful in getting people to pay for Linux when migrating from SCO. So it has been proven that a vendor could extort money but SCO did lose when they actually tried suing one of their clients.
Does a copyright owner have the legal right to retract an issued license?
First off you are going to get a lot of "no" below. That's not true, the actual answer is sort of. For example there is a notion of "fundamental breach" which would allow them to get rid of the license. For example if you were issued a license under the GPL and you proceded to not honor it by distributing a binary without source they could declare you in fundamental breach and revoke the entire license.
Alternately you could get software under the GPL and the author could declare "anticipatory repudiation" which requires you to take mitigating actions. For example if they came to believe their software was covered under a valid patent and they notify you of that, arguably you can't blindly redistribute under the GPL.
It is true that Microsoft could put a system in place tomorrow via Windows Update to prevent me from installing third party software without paying them, however Microsoft has not actually done so
And neither has Apple. Come on, we've talked about the 4 mechanisms in detail.
I'm also sure that Apple has the ability to revoke previously granted keys in updates to the OS.
Keys aren't stored in the OS. They revoke keys on their servers and they can revoke developer keys. Enterprise devices don't talk to Apple's servers at all.
very much doubt that Google could buy one and then just like that set up a competing app-store for the iPhone, so an enterprise SDK can't grant the same powers as Apple has.
Actually yes they could. But..
a) The customers would have to deliberately connect to Google. b) Google now owns the support problems. Google would be agreeing to provide primary support.
Apple is very happy to trade off Apple store revenue for no support costs.
No I'm not objective. I'm someone with extensive personal experience. Lots of successful articles and a few problems. I wasn't claiming to be objective I was claiming to be knowledgeable.
They didn't get the idea from them. Arguably the other way around: Citizendium is openly based on trying to be a compromise between Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
In what sense is Apple the sole authority on iOS that Microsoft isn't? Microsoft has the palladium code and Dell, HP... knows how to put a TCPA chip on a motherboard, they are already on Lenevo and only sell their OS to them. If Microsoft wanted they could tomorrow refuse to ship a version of Windows that would run without a TCPA chip. And with Palladium in place they could certify or not certify applications. Heck, the US copyright office could assert that any of the clauses in the GPLv3 is not in the national interest and wipe any protection clause out from it that Stallman worked so hard for. Could, especially could when it requires multiple changes is not the same as doing it.
You are asserting that Apple is the sole authority. Yet how would they exercise that authority with the devices as they exist?
The Enterprise SDKs are out there. How would they stop someone from setting up an alternate host if they got too restrictive?
The phones are designed to update via. iTunes not over the air like most cell phones which means the firmware is writeable by the user. So in other words the security is a part of the OS you as an end user can change.
How do they regulate the Developer SDKs given that they know nothing about who they have already sold them to and know nothing other than a checksum?
What they would have to do is change the machine and change the development system to actually exercise control. Which is exactly the same stuff Microsoft would have to do. Apple, as the devices are currently configured, the policies currently in place does not have the ability to ban an application from being installed. They could create that ability in the sense they have the know how; but so what everyone else does too?
A fair and true statement is:
1) iOS requires that software be signed to install or run. 2) that Apple is setup as the default authentication agent for keys, but the choice of authentication agent or even the existence is user configurable.
Or in common speech.... "Apple makes it mildly annoying to install software from somewhere other than the Apple store".
What is actually true of these devices as they actually exist that is not true of Microsoft that gives Apple this control?
Well my username there is pretty much my username here, jbolden1517 and I've got thousands of good edits. I've also seen articles I wrote destroyed. More importantly I've seen what was good about wikipedia and what caused it to be a vibrant growing exciting community destroyed. The net effect is that wikipedia is a very unpleasant web community, though they have a good product.
The deletionists have created a miserable community but have brought up the quality of the actual encyclopedia. Where they have done damage is quantity not quality.
It makes sense. Originally they wanted an egalitarian community of editors. If you are going to have that you need an external dispute resolution system which was "verifiability not truth". Now they've thrown away the egalitarian community idea for a non equal non community.
No actually they don't. Outside of fields like biblical studies that are dominated by people from theology schools. When you study things like Egyption history they do not assume the events of the bible are true or reliable.
Are you seriously asking for bad edits on wikipedia like they don't exist? Correct information replaced with total nonsense and defended because of people having the right friends? Seriously?
If you are, read wikireview. They may hate wikipedia but they certainly know the articles. Go read the archives on wikitruth. Encyclopedia Dramatica.
My wife is an academic and a fairly notable one. I think she'd be willing to edit a few articles she's an expert in once. She wouldn't be willing to hand around and discuss her edits at length with high school and college students.
A lot of the people on/. were on wikipedia before there was a culture shift. It sounds like you weren't around prior to the Userbox wars when the culture was different. The community really did rule and admins didn't have much actual authority. Wikipedia used to be frustrating but it was remarkably fair. Now admins can casually indefban someone. Its a mean dictatorship.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the first class. Businesses that never developed a windows culture. Yes they are easy to convert and Linux has been a huge success for them.
There are basically 3 types of businesses that tried adoption:
1) Businesses that had never developed a Windows culture. Burlington Coat Factory, Pep Boys, Autozone.... They were able to switch easily. ... Some were failures and some successes. Generally failure.
2) Businesses with a tech culture that was windows based but were highly motivated. Oracle, IBM,
3) Businesses with a standard end user culture but highly motivated. Midsized on down successes have been known, I don't know of any large corporate successes.
Windows embeds itself in so many places. Its very addictive to the enterprises and they find it harder then they ever imagined to kick the habit.
I agree. Their research division is amazing. If they implemented 10% of what came out of their research division they would have the coolest sites around.
OK then lets generalize to something like Godel's.
Given any definition of good, either a government has engaged in an act which qualifies or the definition would be rejected by no less than 99.9999% of the population.
BS there were lots of anti french jokes in the 1980s. They started when de Gaulle was screwing around about NATO.
> Name one time government did any good.
OK ending the contiminated water epidemics that used to be a huge problem in the 19th century.
And that holds true for any other human institution. So what? And in a similar vein individuals have no wisdom of their own, their wisdom comes from the cells that make them up.
I suggest you do a web search on whether the GPL is a contract. Open Source Business Conference, San Francisco, March 17, 2004; had a panal on this matter and opinions were heavily divided. The vast majority of lawyers believe that redistribution is a consideration since licenses have value generally under the law.
Right but if you downloaded another copy you could argue that's a new license.... That's why revocation is important.
I agree with you on this, most lawyers agree that the GPL goes beyond copyright and asserts a contract. So far the FSF's position is that it is asserting rights under copyright law and not creating a contract. The reason being is that contract law, is more complex in terms of damage and breach while copyright law is simply; you can't copy unless you are licensed. So you can't just assume that point that there is a contract in place while at the same time using the FSF's reasoning as far as simplicity.
I don't know Australia law, so I have no opinion one way or the other. The Journal of the National Society for Computers, September 2002 Issue 49 specifically addressed this case for Australia and felt that the bare permission was so unambiguous in the case of the GPL that it wouldn't apply. In the US you have to declare a breach, and that's going to require preponderance of the evidence.
Now of course there is nothing to prevent intimidation using the threat of a suit. SCO was somewhat successful in getting people to pay for Linux when migrating from SCO. So it has been proven that a vendor could extort money but SCO did lose when they actually tried suing one of their clients.
First off you are going to get a lot of "no" below. That's not true, the actual answer is sort of. For example there is a notion of "fundamental breach" which would allow them to get rid of the license. For example if you were issued a license under the GPL and you proceded to not honor it by distributing a binary without source they could declare you in fundamental breach and revoke the entire license.
Alternately you could get software under the GPL and the author could declare "anticipatory repudiation" which requires you to take mitigating actions. For example if they came to believe their software was covered under a valid patent and they notify you of that, arguably you can't blindly redistribute under the GPL.
How so?
And neither has Apple. Come on, we've talked about the 4 mechanisms in detail.
Keys aren't stored in the OS. They revoke keys on their servers and they can revoke developer keys. Enterprise devices don't talk to Apple's servers at all.
Actually yes they could. But..
a) The customers would have to deliberately connect to Google.
b) Google now owns the support problems. Google would be agreeing to provide primary support.
Apple is very happy to trade off Apple store revenue for no support costs.
I think your second sentence is clipped.
No I'm not objective. I'm someone with extensive personal experience. Lots of successful articles and a few problems. I wasn't claiming to be objective I was claiming to be knowledgeable.
They didn't get the idea from them. Arguably the other way around:
Citizendium is openly based on trying to be a compromise between Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
In what sense is Apple the sole authority on iOS that Microsoft isn't? Microsoft has the palladium code and Dell, HP... knows how to put a TCPA chip on a motherboard, they are already on Lenevo and only sell their OS to them. If Microsoft wanted they could tomorrow refuse to ship a version of Windows that would run without a TCPA chip. And with Palladium in place they could certify or not certify applications. Heck, the US copyright office could assert that any of the clauses in the GPLv3 is not in the national interest and wipe any protection clause out from it that Stallman worked so hard for. Could, especially could when it requires multiple changes is not the same as doing it.
You are asserting that Apple is the sole authority. Yet how would they exercise that authority with the devices as they exist?
The Enterprise SDKs are out there. How would they stop someone from setting up an alternate host if they got too restrictive?
The phones are designed to update via. iTunes not over the air like most cell phones which means the firmware is writeable by the user. So in other words the security is a part of the OS you as an end user can change.
How do they regulate the Developer SDKs given that they know nothing about who they have already sold them to and know nothing other than a checksum?
What they would have to do is change the machine and change the development system to actually exercise control. Which is exactly the same stuff Microsoft would have to do. Apple, as the devices are currently configured, the policies currently in place does not have the ability to ban an application from being installed. They could create that ability in the sense they have the know how; but so what everyone else does too?
A fair and true statement is:
1) iOS requires that software be signed to install or run.
2) that Apple is setup as the default authentication agent for keys, but the choice of authentication agent or even the existence is user configurable.
Or in common speech.... "Apple makes it mildly annoying to install software from somewhere other than the Apple store".
What is actually true of these devices as they actually exist that is not true of Microsoft that gives Apple this control?
Well my username there is pretty much my username here, jbolden1517 and I've got thousands of good edits. I've also seen articles I wrote destroyed. More importantly I've seen what was good about wikipedia and what caused it to be a vibrant growing exciting community destroyed. The net effect is that wikipedia is a very unpleasant web community, though they have a good product.
I think it could have been a lot more.
You might like: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium
The deletionists have created a miserable community but have brought up the quality of the actual encyclopedia. Where they have done damage is quantity not quality.
It makes sense. Originally they wanted an egalitarian community of editors. If you are going to have that you need an external dispute resolution system which was "verifiability not truth". Now they've thrown away the egalitarian community idea for a non equal non community.
No actually they don't. Outside of fields like biblical studies that are dominated by people from theology schools. When you study things like Egyption history they do not assume the events of the bible are true or reliable.
Are you seriously asking for bad edits on wikipedia like they don't exist? Correct information replaced with total nonsense and defended because of people having the right friends? Seriously?
If you are, read wikireview. They may hate wikipedia but they certainly know the articles. Go read the archives on wikitruth. Encyclopedia Dramatica.
My wife is an academic and a fairly notable one. I think she'd be willing to edit a few articles she's an expert in once. She wouldn't be willing to hand around and discuss her edits at length with high school and college students.
A lot of the people on /. were on wikipedia before there was a culture shift. It sounds like you weren't around prior to the Userbox wars when the culture was different. The community really did rule and admins didn't have much actual authority. Wikipedia used to be frustrating but it was remarkably fair. Now admins can casually indefban someone. Its a mean dictatorship.