So explain to me why I can install Office XP on Windows 98.
That's not to say that Microsoft won't add new APIs (as they certainly have a right to do), but it's not the picture you paint. Microsoft WANTS to sell Office apps, even on older operating systems.
so when you finally get it, it'll cost as much as windows, because of all the effort and expense.
So what? I have absolutely no problem with paying for software. What I want are Windows-quality applications on a Unix core running on commodity hardware.
Well, maybe not 100s of millions, but certainly a lot of it. Windows is not exactly a small product. You need engineers, LOTS of testing staff (including lots of different hardware, lots of different apps, etc), as well as a commitment to a solid marketing campaign. I've always wanted to see something like "Absolutely, positively 100% compatible. Only better."
To do it right, you need big engineering resources, as well as enough money to keep you afloat without income for a few years.
But you'll note that's a legitimate complaint, based on the similarity between Windows and Lindows. You may not necessarily agree that it infringes (I do agree, actually), but it's legitimate.
What you'll note is that it's NOT a technology lawsuit.
OS/2 is the PERFECT example! Do you know what killed OS/2? No, it wasn't IBM's marketing. It was lack of Win32 compatibility, as well as lack of hardware compability. All the apps and drivers were being written for Windows, and IBM had to run around begging developers.
I mean, IBM used to ship OS/2 AND Windows 3.1 (3.1!!) on the same boxes. You had to go through a rigamorole to delete OS/2 and install Win 3.1. Yet everyone did, because the software selection and hardware select for OS/2 completely sucked.
Compability is everything! It's been proven time and time again.
So do it already. If it's so straightforward, what are you waiting for?
If I had a few spare 100 millions of dollars lying around, I would. That's what galls me: Robertson has the freaking money and contacts. He could do it -- if he had the guts to see it through. Unfortunately, he's either a) lost focus on the real target, b) he's decided that he the risk is too high, or c) has deluded himself into thinking that "click-and-run" really is revolutionary and you really don't have to have compatability with the HUGE shrink-wrap and installed-software market (GAH!)
I've been pretty bitterly disappointed with how Lindows has backed away from Windows compability. Early on, they was the big deal: That they were going to take Wine and expand it dramatically with the goal of having near-full Windows compatibility.
Apparently, they've decided that was too hard and/or expensive, and decided to market this ridiculous click-and-run as some "revolutionary" feature.
Sheesh, when will SOMEONE figure out that the key to HUGE fame and riches is to come out with an operating system that is FREAKING COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS. This is not rocket science. It just takes money and guts.
And just to head off the typical replies to this, let me deal with them:
1) But RM101! They APIS are undocumented!!!
True, in many cases. So what? Do what Wine does-- figure them out. And that only applies to Microsoft applications. There are a LOT of applications out there that use the standard ones.
2) But RM101! They'll just change the APIs!!!!
No, they can't, or they break everyone's software out there. Microsoft was built on backward compatbility.
3) But RM101! They'll just sue anyone who tries!!
First of all, Microsoft has ZERO history of suing companies in order to destroy them (See Apple for an example of a company that uses the lawsuit as a weapon). And even if they did, so what? Like I said, money and guts. They'll lose.
You know, the Internet is more than how fast bits flow into your computer. The speed of the processor directly affects how fast your pages render. In fact, I recently upgraded my inlaws to a much faster computer, and they commented on how much faster "the internet" was. (their normal home page renders ridiculously slowly for some reason)
In other words, the Internet is not much good without applications to use it, and faster applications == faster Internet.
Also, shouldn't an initial communication consist of a standard information format, (I suggest plain text), and then fork into proprietary formats only if both parties agree to standardize on that format?
But who wants to live in that world? I agree that open formats would be an improvement, but having a standard format is arguable more important. I like being able to send a document that 99% of the world can read without having to go through some negotiation process. I mean, what if we all had to call each other on the phone to ask what "plain text" format they used, ASCII or EBCDIC? Standards are good.
As for Visio, I agree that before sending a format where it's possible/probable that the recipient can't read, someone should check.
I agree that I misinterpreted what he said, but to your point, personally I would much rather have the Visio source file that I can further modify rather than a PDF that's completely static.
OK, reading it again, I agree with your assessment and that my interpretation was wrong. I think it could be phrased a lot better, however. In fact, it's really a pretty useless paragraph. This is simply redundantly arguing again for "Open Standards", which is his first paragraph.
I agree with some of the things he advocates, but the follow is so wrong and bad I can't believe it:
No user should be required to use a particular product simply because other users do. Competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards.
Sheesh, you're saying that companies and/or the government (PARTICULARLY the latter) should everyone run different software? And the IT departments are supposed to support every oddball application, just because a user is too lazy and/or stubborn and/or religious to learn a different one? And in the case of the government, MY TAX DOLLARS are supposed to support this?
I'm sorry, but if you hate Microsoft that much and want to use something else, go to a company that uses the software that you want to use.
While you might have the legal right to write any code you wanted, you would face charges if you distributed anything other than Palladium-signed code.
Thank you for neatly summing up the fact that Palladium is no big deal, and that you have to resort to crazy, paranoid scenerios to find any problem at all.
Hey, maybe the government will outlaw ALL private software development, and only government supplied software will be legal!
The point is that there are a LOT of proposals, but no consensus about how public key management should work.
People could make money just like they do with SSL certs - charging a nominal fee for storage of their verified keys.
Ah, the kiss of death. There is an implicit assumption here that people care about encrypting their e-mail. Quite frankly, they don't. Honestly, I don't even care. If it were completely transparent, I'd probably do it (why not?), but it's just not that big a deal.
That's why I proposed that it has to happen at the SMTP level. The only way this is going to work is if the users don't even know that encryption is happening. In other words, transparent means transparent -- absolutely zero action on the part of the user. If it takes any action, no matter how trivial, it will fail. The users just don't care enough.
Because FTP is not an anonymous distribution mechanism. P2P allows indexing, searching and connecting anonymous people to transfer files.
Sure, you can find someone on IRC and transfer a file. But guess what? The recording industry doesn't care about that. They care about easy distribution that anyone can do.
In other words, Mary the Cheerleader (communications major) is not likely to use a warez channel on IRC. Your mom is not likely to use a warez channel. The salesguy down the hall is not likely to use a warez channel. But they all used Napster.
The whole point of enigmail, which I have installed on this system, is to make it as seamless and automatic as possible to encrypt/decrypt messages.
Key words: "as possible". This does not make it easy or transparent.
Currently, I have it set up to automatically sign my messages by default, though switching to automatic encryption is simply a matter of changing a menu option.
This shows your lack of understanding of the problem. Sure, you could just "flip the switch", but think about how that has to work. To encrypt a message to someone, you have to have their public key. This requires the user to make a concious choice to get another person's public key before they can send an e-mail. Do you really think Grandma is going to ask for my public key before sending me an e-mail? I know all about these things, and *I'm* not going to bother to do it.
The only way encryption is ever going to be mainstream is if it's supported at the SMTP level -- I send a query to an e-mail recipient for their public key, it gets sent back, I encrypt, then send the mail. That's the ONLY way it's ever going to happen.
Unfortunately, it also means reworking a lot of how SMTP works, including SMTP forwarding, etc. Not to mention the authentication problems imposed by this solution (man in the middle substitutes a different public key, for example).
The other way it could be done is to have a centralized public key registry index by e-mail address, but who runs it? Who pays for it? And how do you get all the e-mail clients to recognize it as an authority? Probably the way it should be done is decentralized, somewhat like DNS.
There's a reason these problems haven't been solved up until now: they're EXTREMELY difficult.
It is a violation of the EULA for Mac OS to run it on any non-Apple-branded hardware.
That was the topic in the original post of the thread, which is basically talking about running it on foreign hardware. Hardware that you build yourself (the subject at hand) is different from hardware that you build to resell.
YES, it EXACTLY does matter. Automobiles are not used 99.999% for illegitimate purposes. It is legitimate to ban P2P because there are alternatives (e.g., FTP) for legitimate trading. There basically is zero downside to banning P2P programs.
Slashdot Mirror
So explain to me why I can install Office XP on Windows 98.
That's not to say that Microsoft won't add new APIs (as they certainly have a right to do), but it's not the picture you paint. Microsoft WANTS to sell Office apps, even on older operating systems.
Note the phrase: commodity hardware. I will NEVER give money to Apple for their hardware.
so when you finally get it, it'll cost as much as windows, because of all the effort and expense.
So what? I have absolutely no problem with paying for software. What I want are Windows-quality applications on a Unix core running on commodity hardware.
Why do you need that money? Where would it go?
Well, maybe not 100s of millions, but certainly a lot of it. Windows is not exactly a small product. You need engineers, LOTS of testing staff (including lots of different hardware, lots of different apps, etc), as well as a commitment to a solid marketing campaign. I've always wanted to see something like "Absolutely, positively 100% compatible. Only better."
To do it right, you need big engineering resources, as well as enough money to keep you afloat without income for a few years.
But you'll note that's a legitimate complaint, based on the similarity between Windows and Lindows. You may not necessarily agree that it infringes (I do agree, actually), but it's legitimate.
What you'll note is that it's NOT a technology lawsuit.
OS/2 is the PERFECT example! Do you know what killed OS/2? No, it wasn't IBM's marketing. It was lack of Win32 compatibility, as well as lack of hardware compability. All the apps and drivers were being written for Windows, and IBM had to run around begging developers.
I mean, IBM used to ship OS/2 AND Windows 3.1 (3.1!!) on the same boxes. You had to go through a rigamorole to delete OS/2 and install Win 3.1. Yet everyone did, because the software selection and hardware select for OS/2 completely sucked.
Compability is everything! It's been proven time and time again.
So do it already. If it's so straightforward, what are you waiting for?
If I had a few spare 100 millions of dollars lying around, I would. That's what galls me: Robertson has the freaking money and contacts. He could do it -- if he had the guts to see it through. Unfortunately, he's either a) lost focus on the real target, b) he's decided that he the risk is too high, or c) has deluded himself into thinking that "click-and-run" really is revolutionary and you really don't have to have compatability with the HUGE shrink-wrap and installed-software market (GAH!)
I've been pretty bitterly disappointed with how Lindows has backed away from Windows compability. Early on, they was the big deal: That they were going to take Wine and expand it dramatically with the goal of having near-full Windows compatibility.
Apparently, they've decided that was too hard and/or expensive, and decided to market this ridiculous click-and-run as some "revolutionary" feature.
Sheesh, when will SOMEONE figure out that the key to HUGE fame and riches is to come out with an operating system that is FREAKING COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS. This is not rocket science. It just takes money and guts.
And just to head off the typical replies to this, let me deal with them:
1) But RM101! They APIS are undocumented!!!
True, in many cases. So what? Do what Wine does-- figure them out. And that only applies to Microsoft applications. There are a LOT of applications out there that use the standard ones.
2) But RM101! They'll just change the APIs!!!!
No, they can't, or they break everyone's software out there. Microsoft was built on backward compatbility.
3) But RM101! They'll just sue anyone who tries!!
First of all, Microsoft has ZERO history of suing companies in order to destroy them (See Apple for an example of a company that uses the lawsuit as a weapon). And even if they did, so what? Like I said, money and guts. They'll lose.
PLEASE!! SOMEONE OUT THERE GET A CLUE!!
I thought Lindows had one, but apparently not.
So if I have one of these in an Apple Laptop, do I get an explosive fireball?
Cooooooool... now that would make me spring for some Apple hardware! [as long as it was under warranty]
LiveCDs have always been a great way to sway potential Linux-converts, but this should really impress them!
Zealot: "And look at this!! You plug in the CD, and it runs Unreal Tournament!!"
Normal Person: "But... my Windows already does that."
Zealot: "But you don't understand! It's better because it's Linux!!"
Normal Person: "But it looks the same to me... ?"
Zealot: "Well, yeah, but that's the point! It looks the same, but it's on Linux!!"
Normal Person: "Er.. OK. Show me The Sims next!"
Zealot: "Give me a few hours to get Quake working..."
You know, the Internet is more than how fast bits flow into your computer. The speed of the processor directly affects how fast your pages render. In fact, I recently upgraded my inlaws to a much faster computer, and they commented on how much faster "the internet" was. (their normal home page renders ridiculously slowly for some reason)
In other words, the Internet is not much good without applications to use it, and faster applications == faster Internet.
Also, shouldn't an initial communication consist of a standard information format, (I suggest plain text), and then fork into proprietary formats only if both parties agree to standardize on that format?
But who wants to live in that world? I agree that open formats would be an improvement, but having a standard format is arguable more important. I like being able to send a document that 99% of the world can read without having to go through some negotiation process. I mean, what if we all had to call each other on the phone to ask what "plain text" format they used, ASCII or EBCDIC? Standards are good.
As for Visio, I agree that before sending a format where it's possible/probable that the recipient can't read, someone should check.
I agree that I misinterpreted what he said, but to your point, personally I would much rather have the Visio source file that I can further modify rather than a PDF that's completely static.
OK, reading it again, I agree with your assessment and that my interpretation was wrong. I think it could be phrased a lot better, however. In fact, it's really a pretty useless paragraph. This is simply redundantly arguing again for "Open Standards", which is his first paragraph.
I agree with some of the things he advocates, but the follow is so wrong and bad I can't believe it:
No user should be required to use a particular product simply because other users do. Competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards.
Sheesh, you're saying that companies and/or the government (PARTICULARLY the latter) should everyone run different software? And the IT departments are supposed to support every oddball application, just because a user is too lazy and/or stubborn and/or religious to learn a different one? And in the case of the government, MY TAX DOLLARS are supposed to support this?
I'm sorry, but if you hate Microsoft that much and want to use something else, go to a company that uses the software that you want to use.
While you might have the legal right to write any code you wanted, you would face charges if you distributed anything other than Palladium-signed code.
Thank you for neatly summing up the fact that Palladium is no big deal, and that you have to resort to crazy, paranoid scenerios to find any problem at all.
Hey, maybe the government will outlaw ALL private software development, and only government supplied software will be legal!
/rant mode: OK, I've had about enough of this sort of insane rhetoric. I'm calling you out. Let's see how ignorant you really are.
Lay out the scenerio: EXACTLY how will Palladium make "software that daddy wrote" illegal.
That's all I'm asking: tell me exactly how this scenerio unfolds. And please cite exactly in the Palladium spec how your scenerio plays out.
I'm betting you don't even know what Palladium is.
The point is that there are a LOT of proposals, but no consensus about how public key management should work.
People could make money just like they do with SSL certs - charging a nominal fee for storage of their verified keys.
Ah, the kiss of death. There is an implicit assumption here that people care about encrypting their e-mail. Quite frankly, they don't. Honestly, I don't even care. If it were completely transparent, I'd probably do it (why not?), but it's just not that big a deal.
That's why I proposed that it has to happen at the SMTP level. The only way this is going to work is if the users don't even know that encryption is happening. In other words, transparent means transparent -- absolutely zero action on the part of the user. If it takes any action, no matter how trivial, it will fail. The users just don't care enough.
Because FTP is not an anonymous distribution mechanism. P2P allows indexing, searching and connecting anonymous people to transfer files.
Sure, you can find someone on IRC and transfer a file. But guess what? The recording industry doesn't care about that. They care about easy distribution that anyone can do.
In other words, Mary the Cheerleader (communications major) is not likely to use a warez channel on IRC. Your mom is not likely to use a warez channel. The salesguy down the hall is not likely to use a warez channel. But they all used Napster.
or are you just talking out of your ass again?
As usual, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
The whole point of enigmail, which I have installed on this system, is to make it as seamless and automatic as possible to encrypt/decrypt messages.
Key words: "as possible". This does not make it easy or transparent.
Currently, I have it set up to automatically sign my messages by default, though switching to automatic encryption is simply a matter of changing a menu option.
This shows your lack of understanding of the problem. Sure, you could just "flip the switch", but think about how that has to work. To encrypt a message to someone, you have to have their public key. This requires the user to make a concious choice to get another person's public key before they can send an e-mail. Do you really think Grandma is going to ask for my public key before sending me an e-mail? I know all about these things, and *I'm* not going to bother to do it.
The only way encryption is ever going to be mainstream is if it's supported at the SMTP level -- I send a query to an e-mail recipient for their public key, it gets sent back, I encrypt, then send the mail. That's the ONLY way it's ever going to happen.
Unfortunately, it also means reworking a lot of how SMTP works, including SMTP forwarding, etc. Not to mention the authentication problems imposed by this solution (man in the middle substitutes a different public key, for example).
The other way it could be done is to have a centralized public key registry index by e-mail address, but who runs it? Who pays for it? And how do you get all the e-mail clients to recognize it as an authority? Probably the way it should be done is decentralized, somewhat like DNS.
There's a reason these problems haven't been solved up until now: they're EXTREMELY difficult.
It is a violation of the EULA for Mac OS to run it on any non-Apple-branded hardware.
That was the topic in the original post of the thread, which is basically talking about running it on foreign hardware. Hardware that you build yourself (the subject at hand) is different from hardware that you build to resell.
but it doesn't matter
YES, it EXACTLY does matter. Automobiles are not used 99.999% for illegitimate purposes. It is legitimate to ban P2P because there are alternatives (e.g., FTP) for legitimate trading. There basically is zero downside to banning P2P programs.
And who is talking about selling anything?
With this and Evolution and Kmail both supporting GPG and PGP are we at the dawn of that golden age when encrypted email will be commonplace?
Of course! Because we know that the only thing holding back encrypted e-mail is the fact that Linux didn't have it built in! (rolls eyes)
Of course, the fact that it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to make it fully automatic for the users has nothing to do with it.
According to the UK site, there's going to be a live web cast.