The last one is an injunction against covetousness, and while that's perfectly good advice, it's not something I want Big Brother to monitor
Hmmm...Ok, how about "Thou shalt not incite others to covet." That should shut down the entier sales, marketing, and advertising industry. Works for me. Of course, the bit about lying probably covers about 99% of this...
That's right! Red Bull promotes longer life spans! Of all the Red Bull drinkers, only three have been reported dead in national media! Turn to page E-7 and look at all the obituaries of NON-Red Bull drinkers!
This would be better titled "Motorola sues over trademark violation." The fact that the ad was sent via pager is totally irrelevant. The fact that the ad said they were offering a Motorola T-10 pager, when in fact they were not, is the reason Motorola was suing.
It's like people at work that think they have a "right" to not have their email or web usage monitored. You're using someone elses resources, you have to follow their rules. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Hmmm....a little cut, a little paste, and voila!
It's like people at work that that they have a
"right" not to have their bathroom breaks webcast. You're using someone elses toilet, you have to follow their rules. If you don't like it, don't use it.
So...having made my point (I hope) that employers DON'T have carte blanche to do what they like to employees simply because the employees are on their property, the question then becomes where to draw the line. That I leave as an exercise for the reader
Actually, YOUR analogy isn't quite right; more like You hired Me to pick up your car and on the way I listened to the radio. This consumed power unnecessarily; since the power comes from gasoline, I cost you money.
If 'zeitgeist' annoys you, then you must really hate this:
ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!
Das komputermaschine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy blowenfusen, schnappen der springenwerk, und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen das hands in der pockets, relaxen, und watchen das blinkenlights.
Boycotts by small numbers of people (ie Free Software geeks) against large corporations are rarely successful (those who disagree are encouraged to send me press releases from Disney where they said they won't give health insurance to gays). However, in this case, we might be able to help this guy out. I think we can take away at least $2000 in sales away from Adobe.
Here's what I suggest. If you were considering purchasing Adobe products for yourself or the organization you work for, delay the purchase. If you work for understanding bosses, explain the situation to them. If you work directly with Adobe representatives (sales, support, whatever), let them know about your decision. Write an email (NO FLAMES - NO UNPROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE - NO THREATS - NO LIES) to Adobe's PR flacks, CEO, head of sales, legal team, etc*. Let them know that you are disappointed in the behavior of their attorneys and you have elected to show your disapproval by delaying purchases of their software indefinitely. Let them know what actions on their part will be necessary before you will resume consideration of their software for purchase. Note that you are not threatening them; you are explaining what has already occurred and what you would like to see occur.
Some possible happy outcomes might include:
- The lawyers representing Adobe to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler withdraw their demands for payment from him.
- The lawyers representing Adobe to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler apologize for their own actions (not necessarily on behalf of Adobe).
- An executive of Adobe apologizes to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler for harassing him (If you give someone a letter of marque and reprisal, you are responsible for their actions.)
- A representative of Adobe meets with Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler to discuss their grievances.
- Adobe sends a nice letter to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler permitting him to use the name KIllustrator.
- Adobe ports all or any (your choice) of their products to Linux.
I think it's important to note (especially since most of us are not lawyers) that Adobe's claim may have merit. The name KIllustrator may infringe on Adobe's trademark. I don't think Adobe should necessarily have to give up the rights it has and is guaranteed by law. Feel free to disagree. Threatening and harassing an honest man, however, is simply wrong.
*Figure out the email addresses yourself; if you aren't willing to put forth some effort, you're useless.
There have been cases where companies with as little as 10% were declared a monopoly. Or something close. A merger between two companies in (IIRC) the shoe business was denied because together they controlled 10% of the market.
Think about how Linus would pronounce this and you'll realize that they'd soon hear from Kimberly Clark. You know, the folks who make that boxed facial tissue?
(see http://205.203.65.110/home.htm if you still don't get it...)
There are valid packages which require non-statndard hardware and non-standard function calls, as well. And they may not be LSB compliant. From my reading, all that means is that they're not (very) portable. No big deal - use it if you need to, but don't expect to be able to compile or run it on every system under the sun.
Beside, if you don't trust app vendors whom are you going to trust? No one. You assume that every app has security holes that could potentially compromise your system. You do a cost-benefit analysis and see if the potential for compromise outweighs the benefit of running the software. (P.S. Nice use of the word "whom" - hardly anyone knows how to do that these days.)
If it is an "open" source app do you really have the skills to wade thru tens of thousands lines of code in search of something that might be hidden in two lines or even bunch of static hex defines? If it's closed source, NO ONE can audit the code. If it's open source, someone can. If it's something that is mission critical, then I will probably assist the community in auditing the code. Suggesting that we all do our own total code audits sounds to me like going back to the wonderful medieval system, everyone producing just enough to cover his/her own needs.:)
If something is seriously wrong you will know about it regardless if it is open or closed source application. With closed source, I won't hear about a problem in the code until the vendor chooses to tell me. I know there won't be a fix until the vendor chooses to provide me with one. Open source does not guarantee a solution to this sort of problem; it does provide for the existence of a solution to this problem.
I believe that you are confusing two different situations - that of the individual and that of the large group. (I see this a lot and point it out whenever I can.) Generalities don't scale. Things that are generally true for one person are often not true for large groups of people. If you ask one person "Will you be able to audit the code" the answer will be "No" 99% of the time. But if you ask a group of a million people the same thing, the answer will be "Yes" 99% of the time. Think about it...
IIRC, it was in "I, Robot"...should be in your local library. If not, berate the librarian for not including the classics of 20th century literature in her collection.
Microsoft competes well in the desktop market, but they aren't a serious contender in the high-end server market. Do they even have a 32-bit operating system?
Intel competes well in the desktop market, but they aren't a serious contender in the high-end server market. Do they even have a 32-bit processor?
The IBM PC architecture competes well in the desktop market....
These are all statements that could have been made in the past (and probably were). They've all been superseded. I would suggest that success in the desktop market permits economies of scale that can be used to overtake the server market. On a side note, I would suggest that success in the desktop market hinges on selling to business customers. Thus Dell is eating both Compaq's and Gateway's lunches.
(1) You are absolutely right and don't need me to explain why.
Also,
(2) You are completely wrong and I'm about to tell you why. My job is to GUARANTEE to a group of $250/hr attorneys that their computers will work when they want to use them. I am paid good money to see to it that they don't break. One of the limitations of my job is that I don't have the time to make you happy. Sorry, I really am, because I understand completely, but I cannot risk anything, and I don't have the time to analyze everything. You don't have to agree that I'm right, but at least try to understand. See, the thing of it is that it's not my job to guarantee that YOU can do whatever you want with your computer, but that the bosses can do whatever THEY want with their computers. YOU won't fire me if I don't let you download WebShots, but when you download a screensaver that was uploaded to a silently cracked web site by evil hackers and which transferred the contents of C:\My Documents\ to (insert cracker URL here), resulting in massive litigation against the firm for violation of attorney-client privilege, THEN I'm going to get fired.
and it would be beneficial to know who exactly "owns" this work.
Yup...that's why you ask first. Once you've sunk money into a graduate program, it's really a little late (from your perspective), since the alternative is to pick up and go to a different grad school and waste more time and money. Though probably not effort, since you'll be working on the same thesis. Unless you're a glutton for punishment...
It is horrible PR. No it is not! Do you really thinkg MS's PR is aimed at the slashdot crowd? Or do you think it's aimed at the PHB's who allocate funds for software purchases? Repeat after me:
GEEKS DO NOT CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS.
MS is a business; their goal is to make money; their advertising is targeted at people who spend money on software. 'Nuff said.
When I give you a copy of free software that I've written, I lost nothing To be precise, the marginal cost of giving someone else a copy is negligible. I'd suggest that the cost of giving someone a copy of your software = (Value of your time)*(Hours spent coding and copying) / (number of copies made). I'd suggest that if you spend five years of your life coding THE software solution, and give all the copies away for free, then all of them together cost you five years of your life - hardly nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
The last one is an injunction against covetousness, and while that's perfectly good advice, it's not something I want Big Brother to monitor
Hmmm...Ok, how about "Thou shalt not incite others to covet." That should shut down the entier sales, marketing, and advertising industry. Works for me. Of course, the bit about lying probably covers about 99% of this...
That's right! Red Bull promotes longer life spans! Of all the Red Bull drinkers, only three have been reported dead in national media! Turn to page E-7 and look at all the obituaries of NON-Red Bull drinkers!
This would be better titled "Motorola sues over trademark violation." The fact that the ad was sent via pager is totally irrelevant. The fact that the ad said they were offering a Motorola T-10 pager, when in fact they were not, is the reason Motorola was suing.
It's like people at work that think they have a "right" to not have their email or web usage monitored. You're using someone elses resources, you have to follow their rules. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Hmmm....a little cut, a little paste, and voila!
It's like people at work that that they have a
"right" not to have their bathroom breaks webcast. You're using someone elses toilet, you have to follow their rules. If you don't like it, don't use it.
So...having made my point (I hope) that employers DON'T have carte blanche to do what they like to employees simply because the employees are on their property, the question then becomes where to draw the line. That I leave as an exercise for the reader
Actually, YOUR analogy isn't quite right; more like You hired Me to pick up your car and on the way I listened to the radio. This consumed power unnecessarily; since the power comes from gasoline, I cost you money.
Rats...I guess that means that I have to give back all my Christmas presents, too...
If 'zeitgeist' annoys you, then you must really hate this:
ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!
Das komputermaschine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy blowenfusen, schnappen der springenwerk, und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen das hands in der pockets, relaxen, und watchen das blinkenlights.
Boycotts by small numbers of people (ie Free Software geeks) against large corporations are rarely successful (those who disagree are encouraged to send me press releases from Disney where they said they won't give health insurance to gays). However, in this case, we might be able to help this guy out. I think we can take away at least $2000 in sales away from Adobe.
Here's what I suggest. If you were considering purchasing Adobe products for yourself or the organization you work for, delay the purchase. If you work for understanding bosses, explain the situation to them. If you work directly with Adobe representatives (sales, support, whatever), let them know about your decision. Write an email (NO FLAMES - NO UNPROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE - NO THREATS - NO LIES) to Adobe's PR flacks, CEO, head of sales, legal team, etc*. Let them know that you are disappointed in the behavior of their attorneys and you have elected to show your disapproval by delaying purchases of their software indefinitely. Let them know what actions on their part will be necessary before you will resume consideration of their software for purchase. Note that you are not threatening them; you are explaining what has already occurred and what you would like to see occur.
Some possible happy outcomes might include:
- The lawyers representing Adobe to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler withdraw their demands for payment from him.
- The lawyers representing Adobe to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler apologize for their own actions (not necessarily on behalf of Adobe).
- An executive of Adobe apologizes to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler for harassing him (If you give someone a letter of marque and reprisal, you are responsible for their actions.)
- A representative of Adobe meets with Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler to discuss their grievances.
- Adobe sends a nice letter to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler permitting him to use the name KIllustrator.
- Adobe ports all or any (your choice) of their products to Linux.
I think it's important to note (especially since most of us are not lawyers) that Adobe's claim may have merit. The name KIllustrator may infringe on Adobe's trademark. I don't think Adobe should necessarily have to give up the rights it has and is guaranteed by law. Feel free to disagree. Threatening and harassing an honest man, however, is simply wrong.
*Figure out the email addresses yourself; if you aren't willing to put forth some effort, you're useless.
There have been cases where companies with as little as 10% were declared a monopoly. Or something close. A merger between two companies in (IIRC) the shoe business was denied because together they controlled 10% of the market.
"My name is Leenus Torvalds, and I pronounce 'Klinux' as Kleenux."
Think about how Linus would pronounce this and you'll realize that they'd soon hear from Kimberly Clark. You know, the folks who make that boxed facial tissue?
(see http://205.203.65.110/home.htm if you still don't get it...)
Firewire?
There are valid packages that need root access
:)
There are valid packages which require non-statndard hardware and non-standard function calls, as well. And they may not be LSB compliant. From my reading, all that means is that they're not (very) portable. No big deal - use it if you need to, but don't expect to be able to compile or run it on every system under the sun.
Beside, if you don't trust app vendors whom are you going to trust?
No one. You assume that every app has security holes that could potentially compromise your system. You do a cost-benefit analysis and see if the potential for compromise outweighs the benefit of running the software. (P.S. Nice use of the word "whom" - hardly anyone knows how to do that these days.)
If it is an "open" source app do you really have the skills to wade thru tens of thousands lines of code in search of something that might be hidden in two lines or even bunch of static hex defines?
If it's closed source, NO ONE can audit the code. If it's open source, someone can. If it's something that is mission critical, then I will probably assist the community in auditing the code. Suggesting that we all do our own total code audits sounds to me like going back to the wonderful medieval system, everyone producing just enough to cover his/her own needs.
If something is seriously wrong you will know about it regardless if it is open or closed source application.
With closed source, I won't hear about a problem in the code until the vendor chooses to tell me. I know there won't be a fix until the vendor chooses to provide me with one. Open source does not guarantee a solution to this sort of problem; it does provide for the existence of a solution to this problem.
I believe that you are confusing two different situations - that of the individual and that of the large group. (I see this a lot and point it out whenever I can.) Generalities don't scale. Things that are generally true for one person are often not true for large groups of people. If you ask one person "Will you be able to audit the code" the answer will be "No" 99% of the time. But if you ask a group of a million people the same thing, the answer will be "Yes" 99% of the time. Think about it...
This was an (admittedly sad attempt at) humor, my friends, humor...
And for the email address...why not use a Hotmail (tm) account?
BTW, does anyone else remember getting a sinking feeling back when MS acquired Hotmail?
IIRC, it was in "I, Robot"...should be in your local library. If not, berate the librarian for not including the classics of 20th century literature in her collection.
the real advantage both masters have is not in their actual prose but in the ideas they express - and no filter is going to be able to duplicate that.
:)
Au contraire - see sci-fi book a minute at rinkworks.com.
Microsoft competes well in the desktop market, but they aren't a serious contender in the high-end server market. Do they even have a 32-bit operating system?
Intel competes well in the desktop market, but they aren't a serious contender in the high-end server market. Do they even have a 32-bit processor?
The IBM PC architecture competes well in the desktop market....
These are all statements that could have been made in the past (and probably were). They've all been superseded. I would suggest that success in the desktop market permits economies of scale that can be used to overtake the server market. On a side note, I would suggest that success in the desktop market hinges on selling to business customers. Thus Dell is eating both Compaq's and Gateway's lunches.
nope, it's rule by river horse. Sounds like the name of a movie - "The River Horse Rulers"
(1) You are absolutely right and don't need me to explain why.
Also,
(2) You are completely wrong and I'm about to tell you why. My job is to GUARANTEE to a group of $250/hr attorneys that their computers will work when they want to use them. I am paid good money to see to it that they don't break. One of the limitations of my job is that I don't have the time to make you happy. Sorry, I really am, because I understand completely, but I cannot risk anything, and I don't have the time to analyze everything. You don't have to agree that I'm right, but at least try to understand. See, the thing of it is that it's not my job to guarantee that YOU can do whatever you want with your computer, but that the bosses can do whatever THEY want with their computers. YOU won't fire me if I don't let you download WebShots, but when you download a screensaver that was uploaded to a silently cracked web site by evil hackers and which transferred the contents of C:\My Documents\ to (insert cracker URL here), resulting in massive litigation against the firm for violation of attorney-client privilege, THEN I'm going to get fired.
You do the math.
and it would be beneficial to know who exactly "owns" this work.
Yup...that's why you ask first. Once you've sunk money into a graduate program, it's really a little late (from your perspective), since the alternative is to pick up and go to a different grad school and waste more time and money. Though probably not effort, since you'll be working on the same thesis. Unless you're a glutton for punishment...
It is horrible PR.
No it is not! Do you really thinkg MS's PR is aimed at the slashdot crowd? Or do you think it's aimed at the PHB's who allocate funds for software purchases? Repeat after me:
GEEKS DO NOT CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS.
MS is a business; their goal is to make money; their advertising is targeted at people who spend money on software. 'Nuff said.
So who is this Tom Braider guy, and why is Angelina Jolie in his movie? And what's with that cartoon girl all over Tom Braider's web site?
How is this different from if I had not seen the film?
;)
When I give you a copy of free software that I've written, I lost nothing
To be precise, the marginal cost of giving someone else a copy is negligible. I'd suggest that the cost of giving someone a copy of your software = (Value of your time)*(Hours spent coding and copying) / (number of copies made). I'd suggest that if you spend five years of your life coding THE software solution, and give all the copies away for free, then all of them together cost you five years of your life - hardly nothing.