"# UK Government will only use products for interoperability that support open standards and specifications in all future IT developments.
Here it is, people - the best reason to use OSS software. It follows Open Standards, without the need for things that "enhance" or "differentiate" it from the rest. Stright from the RFC to your OS. It means that "proprietary lock-in" won't be a problem, should you decide to switch vendors.
Sun didn't get this with Java, and if history repeats itself, some business hack at Microsoft will try to sew up market share by leveraging what even MS is saying is an Open Standard.
I sound like a broken record here, but Open Standards should have the weight of Law in IT. If you extened a Standard, you should either open the code for the extention or have it clearly labelled as a proprietary extention.
Until this happens, I'll be treading very carefully through the OS mine field.
(GAHHHH!!! a Minesweeper reference!!! I'm DOOMED!)
You do realise that/. is frequented by folks who know what "it's an Alpha version" means, yet will still download and try it? Ya, them "geek" types.
There's a lot of these folks here, too. This translates to lots of knowlegeable, quailty testers for the KDE team. Quality testers == a quality product for the rest of us. Knowlegeable testers == help for the KDE people in fixing bugs./. therefore does the community a service when they announce new developments on major OSS projects, by pointing the right eyes to the source code.
BTW, I think it's cool that the only major browser without tabs after KDE3.1 is released will be IE. The Galeon folks should be proud.
Well, I'm feeding a troll, but now I have a nice little rant to e-mail people on why the RIAA shouldn't get into the Technology and Law business. Here we go... *dons Troll feeding suit*
1. She wouldn't have a career at all if it weren't for the exposure she got on major labels in her early years.
Nice theroy. Proof please?.......... Thought so, troll.
2. The major labels are being facile if they ever pretend to care what happens to the Janis Ians of the world. Those are the artists they're losing money on. What they really care about is what happens to the Britneys, because that's where the bulk of their revenue is coming from. But the money Britney earns them is their fund for giving other artists a chance.
That's that's a major problem with our "culture", O Large Ugly Green One, when how much money an artist makes a corporation takes precedent over how good they actually are. Taking away my freedoms to protect the musical Pablum from Brtitney? Again, Mr. Troll, you've got your priorities seriously screwed up. Nice tits != Good Music. (No, I know how to spell her name. Think about it.)
If downloading cuts into Britney's sales (and that seems quite possible to me), it will lead to "marginal" artists getting dumped and fewer getting signed in the future. No exposure, no career. Make a list of all the successful professional musicians who have succeeded without any major-label help. Kind of got bogged down after Ani DiFranco, didn't you?
No kidding. Look, I don't wear a tin foil hat or anything, but if you think for one minute that an artist who gets popular on the 'net - without being in a record labels stable - would get any further than that, you're crazy. I'm sure that the RIAA has more than a few A&R people scouring the web for new band that might get popular without needing them. If they let that happen, it would prove just how ridiculous the RIAA's current business model actually is. That's why, troll - Ani DiFranco is the "One That Got Away". Rest assured that there will be others as well, once artists figure out that with the Internet, a CD maker and a bit of exposure, who needs the RIAA?
So yes, until there's a viable promotion infrastructure outside of the current major labels (and efforts at this are underway), downloading can hurt the Janis Ians, and the aspiring Janis Ians, despite her simplistic observation that incremental downloads aren't currently costing her anything.
Other than bandwidth, what, pray tell, are those downloads costing her? You said yourself that the record companies don't care about her, so why should she care about them? Putting up with 30+ years of RIAA Bovine Fecal Matter would not lead to a simplistic opinion. You'd rather trust Brtitney to inform you of what goes on? Now, that would be a simplistic opinion.
I'd better stop feeding you, Mr. Troll, since you're likely already ben stuffed full of RIAA platitudes and pure bullshit. Go away.
If this piece of hardware didn't happen to run Linux the headline/summary/comment on the front page would have been dripping with sarcasm, contempt and ridicule.
And the problem with that is....????? All kidding aside, I don't think you can say that with certainty. Read on, oh Large, Green and Ugly One...
Don't get me wrong, it would be well deserved IMO, but I'm just saying... because it's a Linux story, it was put up with the straightest of faces. That's slashdot for ya. Go figure.
If you read the story, you'll find out the the devices OS is totally secondary to the main idea of the story - distributing technology to the poor and disadvantaged. That's the reason for the straight face. Besides, I'm sure that if it were BSD based it would get the same treatment.
Develop an idea that doesn't involve open source software that has even one significant flaw and it's "lame." Develop a stupid joke of an idea that runs linux and it's "pretty cool!"
Wrong. The pretty cool idea is there is now an in-expensive device that almost anyone in a poor country can afford to buy and use. Besides, there are few publications that don't show thier political bias from time to time. A smart person learns to sepaprate opinion from fact.
This thing is stupid by the way. Completely idiotic. I actually thought it was some kind of joke at first.
It's no joke, my friend. Get used to it. This little tablet can be a useful device to someone who's never seen a computer before. It just takes imagination, innitiative and innovation - and from the people I've met that came to Canada from India those three things are in very plentiful supply over there.
BTW, there are several reasons that it was smart to choose Linux as the OS. The most prominent is that everyone who gets one of these can read the code and then learn and understand how thier device actually works. Another is the fact that no-one can hi-jack this initiative for thier own gain.
Let's say it was BSD based, and Company A created a "compatible" device with a few quirks in thier now closed OS. They under sell the free (as in speech) project and corner the market. Now, India's poor are "cash cows" to Company A if they want any of the benefits that thier technology can bring. With Linux, that is far less likely to happen, since any one who wants to start milking the cash cow must engineer thier own compatible OS in clean room conditions, which will drive up the price of the competing devices. The Linux OS still wins, stays free and the project continues on it's intended purpose - giving technology to the dis-adavntaged.
OK, Mr. Troll, you've been fed. Off with you now - back under your rock.
Anyone else realise that if this takes off, Linux market share will skyrocket? I could write a (wellll, another) sizeable novel on the implications of that. Yee haa, we're going to have some fun now!
It's times like this that remind me why I love technology!!!
I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows. Al.
No, it's not difficult for you. However, most people don't have a clue as to what a refresh rate is, let alone how to set it by hacking at various commands.
You can rant all you want about "people who don't want to learn the tools" and the other various regular geek arguments, but it boils down to this:
Until a parrot can install and configure a Linux installation, it will not pose a true threat to the Windows desktop OS monopoly.
Yeah, yeah, who wants that, blah blah, whatever. That's what Linux needs to succeed - simple, point and click and it just works installation and configuration (Mandrake is close and Suse [from the account of others] is perhaps closer, but both are not quite there, BTW) that is common to all distros. A tool for the drooling, unwashed masses, while we keep our "sup4r 1337 c0mm4nd l1n3 sk111z".
There are lots of things that could be done to convince Microsoft that this is a really bad idea.
Why? Why is it a bad idea for them to see the OSS community working? What would be bad about showing Microsoft that they can play fair and win?
Nevermind who they are and what they do, just trundle along merrily on your OSS way. Doing that instead of picking a fight, or better still actually welcoming them, will show them how to behave in a community. OK, they've been bad boys and have caused a lot of strife, but I believe in reform more that capital punishment.
"Proprietary software? No thanks. Heyyyy, like the.Net code snippet there, bud. Interested in sharing? I've got some bitchin' PERL scripts here..."
Don't forget that Microsoft employs geeks too. If we're nice to them (and just burn their Marketing Dept at the stake instead), maybe then they'll open up the locked and bolted doors of the Cathedral once in a while and let the Bazaar in for a look. Kinda like a garage sale.;-)
Of course that's what standards bodies are for, but try to get a company - any company - to go along with a standard when they think they can create their own. If you own a standard that everyone uses, you own them, and your stock holders are laughing all the way to the bank. Think RamBus and thier shady, underhanded attempt at extracting tribute from the entire industry for thier "Intellectual Property" that they snuck into standard JEDEC RAM specs. They almost got away with it, too. There are many companies, Microsoft quite obviously included, who would swoon at "owning" a standard. The best way I can think of in ensuring "vendor neutral" is making absolutely certain all companies are aware of power grabs. Then one of 2 things will happen - the initiative will die on the vine and the issue will go away, or detente will be declared and things will actually be vendor neutral.
BTW, Microsoft pretty much does control the North American PC market. A bitch-slap is about all that Microsoft is going to get, alas, when what they need is a really bloody nose (IMHO). Like saying something to the effect of "OK, so it's a standard now. Fine. Standards mean you publish the specs for anyone - and we mean anyone - to produce products that can inter-operate, or we shut you down and take them anyway. Your choice." I've said a few times before that internationally recognised standards should carry the weight of law.
As stupid as this is, let's hope no-one gets any brighter any time soon. Heh - follow me here...
Let's say they apply one of thier DRM methods on that track. If my thinking is correct, overlaying any DRM data on silence means the DRM scheme is laid bare. Instant hack, and Linux is now hapilly playing music encrypted with the DRM scheme. Sound plausible?
Awww, c'mon. Somebody speak up. The silence is deafening... *rimshot*
Your problem is properly engineering your systems, bud. Engineering is a lot more than just picking good pieces - it's having those pieces fit criteria. Those criteria are fulfilling the intended use well and not consuming too may resources.
When I build a system, the first thing I do is ask "What is the major application of this box?" Gaming, CAD, simple e-mail type tasks, server, whatever - you pick the main function and go from there. The specs of your system are initially dependant on what you're trying to do with the machine.
Next is "How long is this machine needed before the user can upgrade again?", so that it doesn't end up a boat anchor in just 6 months. What and how the upgrades happen need to be fleshed out as well. For example, the user may be willing to use a G450 for CAD until next year when a Parhelia is available with stable drivers. Can you swap out the CPU easily? Will RAM be available 1 ½ years from now when it's needed? These things matter. "How fault tolerant is the application" is also of prime importance - a gaming box can be down for a day or 2, but a CAD machine that makes a person $ will require higher quaility innards so it's less likely to break, and I need say nothing about a server.
These 2 steps will give you the requirements for your machine.
Next, you set a budget in stone. Not just $, mind you, but time and frustration as well. These are known as resources. If you need a friend to help you, you count them as a resource as well. You do not over use any resources in a properly engineered system.
Now you can juggle components and vendors. If I'm building a CAD box, I concentrate resources on the CPU, graphics and display subsystems. For a file server, it's memory and I/O. You configure a system on paper, then make sure it will fit the requirements and not over-use any resources. If both statemnets are true, you then procure the pieces and use the resources. If not, your have to try again.
If you cannot re-work the resources so they fit the requirements, you need to re-evaluate the requirements and follow the process again iteratively, until the machine fits the resources. If this means you end up loosing the main application, you need more resources. If there's no more available no matter what, don't build the box.
Like I said, building a PC properly is more than just picking parts at a certain price. Follow proper engineering practice and you'll end up on budget every time.
Whoa! Bill should pay attention to what his marketdriods say. To wit:
Austria:
One of Microsoft's flagship government customers, the Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria, is the first government body in Europe to become a member of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative. As part of the program, the Austrian government is allowed access to the Windows XP source code. Program benefits, according to Microsoft, include better understanding of the technical underpinnings of the operating system, better protection against security vulnerabilities and a resource for writing custom applications.
This is (somewhat) more important than it looks, folks. When the ADTI folks accuse OSS projects of being less than professional, we can simply point to the origional document and say that this "Think Tank" can't even correctly write American Engish.
Rushing the document out the door without proper proof reading shows un-professionalism from ADTI in completeing thier task, a clearly worded and concise critique of the GPL. Pointing out this fact may damage thier credibility in a way that regular folks will understand. This should then allow the larger arguments of an opinion bought and paid for by the BSA in the door, too. We win.;-)
Think tank indeed. Wonder if the CSS camp got it's money's worth?
The same principle applies to natural and computer languages - the more you know, the better you understand the fundamentals.
How about knowing multiple OSes is good for you? Same logic applies. I "speak" Windows, *nix, MacOS, IOS and even some VMS. Now, I'm not afraid of any computer - I know I can figure out what to do with minimal info available.
If everyone didn't care so much about what the OS was because they were afraid of something new and just chose the right tool for the job, "vendor lock-in" might go away. A whole lot more understanding would come about in the IT field, in any event.
Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise:
Right. Hillary Rosen and Bill Gates in the same room might bring together a critical mass of ego + arrogance, cause a thermal-nuclearesque meltdown, explode and take out the whole lot. Saaaayyyy.....;^)
1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes.
HOW??? AI? Hunh? How is a file supposed to know it's copy unless you tell it? Even then, it might not accept that it's a copy (Like Christine "I AM NOT A BRITTNEY CLONE!" Aguli-whatsherface) And just WHO is this artist that puts out high quality stuff?
2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
Soooo, we can trade Brittney and N'Stync "songs" all we want, but not (insert artist of actual value here)? Can we have it the other way, please - bandwidth is valuable, and Kaaza is hurting my link that does productive stuff.
In many judicial systems, the jury has the main responsibility of determining guilt, based on their evaluation of permissible evidence. Your idea is flawed at least in the following ways:
Agreed - trail by a jury of the accuseds peers is the best way known. Note however I never said anything about a lawyer determining the outcome of such a trial.
First, you are replacing the judgement of a dozen jurors with the judgement of one or two lawyers. This creates more room for prejudice of all sorts, and essentially makes it impossible to prosecute a lawyer who pleads his client to a more severe punishment than necessary. The lawyer just has to say: "I honestly thought he was guilty."
No, I am not. If the accused says to his attourney "Ya, I butchered the ol' lady. Get me off.", the attourney's opinion (IMHO) is now tainted anyways. If it isn't, that attourney is not interested in justice, only collecting his fees. If it is tainted, he should be looking to make sure his clients rights are still thouroughly protected, murdering scum that he is.
Second, these lawyers are permitted to see a range of evidence - including illegally obtained evidence - that will color their judgement. Jurors are simply not told about these illegal evidence, and so it will taint them less.
Again, a given. An attourney should still not allow illegal evidence against his client, since that means it would be open season on everyone. This goes back to protecting the rights of the accused, not whether or not the accused is guilty. Some one needs to be there when the cops don't play fair, too. It's a shame that it sometimes means a murderer walks away scot free.
Third, it will greatly reduce the things that a client tells the lawyer, because they will fear what the lawyer might think. This is detrimental to justice because some of these facts might actually exonerate the client.
Hunh? Your logic is flawed in that you make the erroneous assumption that I believe lawyers should determine guilt or innocence. I don't - only that they shouldn't lie or mis-direct the truth in order to facilitate a miscarriage of justice.
For this and other reasons, lawyers must be required to act entirely on their client's best interests, not on their personal judgement of the client's guilt or innocense.
...and to hell with the best interests of society at large, it seems. That is why lawyers aren't held in terribly high esteem anymore - most seem more interested in what's best for their clients, and by extension themselves, than in what's best for society at large. They need to win - lady justice be damned. IMHO this "Winning at all costs" attitude is the root cause of Mr. William Gates IIIs "popularity" around these parts, BTW - if he played fair, we would likely get along better. The justice system should not be a game, where one "wins" - it should be about divining the truth and dispensing justice.
IP Lawyer... Sheesh, enough with the lawyer bashing already.
What? He's dead already? Okey dokie... *Puts down sledge*
(Sorry - that one was just hanging there. I had to.;^])
Lawyers are just people like the rest of us with a job to do - sometimes their clients are wrong, sometimes right.
I'm sensitive to a lawyers plight - at times they have to defend the undefensable, and do a good job of it. That being said, I'd rather they try to get the minimum penalty for thier clients when they know they're guilty, rather than allow criminal behaviour to go un-punished. Justice and all that.
Next time you're up against the RIAA in court, I'd like to see you decline a lawyer on the grounds that the job is of "dubious ethical value".
As long as my attourney is in it to prove my point, not just take my money, he's not of "dubious ethical value" at all. That goes for the one on the other side of the argument. Anyone who believes in thier cause and is willing to argue with reason it's merits, is not of questionalble character. The ones that just prolong trials in order to get thier new yacht are.
I know it's oh so trendy to constantly attack the legal profession, but really. Grow up.
When I see that the legal profession is only interested in justice, and not money and power, I'll put down the sledge, mmmmkay?
Nope. Besides ATI using HydraVision (as the AC points out), a better name for this beast would be Cerberus, the Three Headed Hound from Hell. That sounds cool, too.
Wait... Does that make me a marketer? Ewwww, I feel slimey now. Time to take a shower...
You do relise that there are ways of getting anyone and everyone involved in creating Open Source tools for education. Make sure that everyone knows that you can contribute whether you're in Microsoft's backyard or across the globe.
OSS tools for education. Hmmmmm.... Let's ponder for a few minutes on this, shall we?
1 - We end up with a standard set of baseline tools that all educators in the US (maybe Canada, too) can use. The same grade book means more consistant results reporting.
2 - Educators and students will be exposed to Open Source software, and can contribute them selves via bug reports. (As well, junior programmers can even contribute code;^D).
3 - Using/contributing to OSS builds community (potentially across the country), which IMHO is sorely lacking from todays curicula. As well, the tools themselves provide education in how computers and networks function. The same cannot be easily said about Closed Source Software.
4 - There's no reason to abandon Windows immediately, since you can run Windows and use Linux apps anyway (X termial for Windows of some sort), or even reverse the roles by using Terminal Services(This little utility helps in that regard). That creates a relatively painless migration path. It also shows kids that there's more to IT than Windows and Macintoshes.
These are benefits in addition to those espoused by Linux advocates. Sometimes the best competitive features of a tool are not it's price.
The Reg is being subtly smart on this one. If you read the story with your ad blocker off, what do you see on the left side banner ad?
An orangish coloured box with a picture of a vacuum cleaner on it, over which are the words "Clean Business?" . The ad then flips to just the background with the following message:
Our aim is to remove the growing threat of piracy.
For further information on the resources available, including details on the authorised distribution channel, click here.
Microsoft
Coincedence, or has that ad with the thinly veiled threat of software auditing been placed there specifically to pound home a message?
I laughed when I realised what the Reg was doing. Summary: We have a story about MS being unreasonable in thier licensing on which we have an ad threatening businesses with audits, more evidence of how heavy handed they are in regards to licensing. The kicker? Microsoft likely paid to have the ad on the Reg, and the Reg, in true BOFH style, shoved thier nose in it.:-D
I wonder how long the ad will last on that page...
Slashdot Mirror
Quoth Qrlx:
;-)
For some reason, I read that as "Goatse's Penguin"
Guess I've been reading at -1 too much lately...
Actually, If you were Steve Ballmer, your view of this paper would have you imagining that you are the goatse guy.
Soko
"# UK Government will only use products for interoperability that support open standards and specifications in all future IT developments.
Here it is, people - the best reason to use OSS software. It follows Open Standards, without the need for things that "enhance" or "differentiate" it from the rest. Stright from the RFC to your OS. It means that "proprietary lock-in" won't be a problem, should you decide to switch vendors.
Sun didn't get this with Java, and if history repeats itself, some business hack at Microsoft will try to sew up market share by leveraging what even MS is saying is an Open Standard.
I sound like a broken record here, but Open Standards should have the weight of Law in IT. If you extened a Standard, you should either open the code for the extention or have it clearly labelled as a proprietary extention.
Until this happens, I'll be treading very carefully through the OS mine field.
(GAHHHH!!! a Minesweeper reference!!! I'm DOOMED!)
Soko
I haven't used Opera in a while, but IIRC it had an MDI interface, not true tabs.
Apologies if I was mistaken.
Soko
Winamp nothing. If you look carefully in the fourth picture, you'll see he has Quake installed too. Road rage indeed!
Soko
Ummm... Hi there.
/. is frequented by folks who know what "it's an Alpha version" means, yet will still download and try it? Ya, them "geek" types.
/. therefore does the community a service when they announce new developments on major OSS projects, by pointing the right eyes to the source code.
You do realise that
There's a lot of these folks here, too. This translates to lots of knowlegeable, quailty testers for the KDE team. Quality testers == a quality product for the rest of us. Knowlegeable testers == help for the KDE people in fixing bugs.
BTW, I think it's cool that the only major browser without tabs after KDE3.1 is released will be IE. The Galeon folks should be proud.
Soko
If this really catches on for marketing games, this guy has some hope of realizing his dream.
Soko
Well, I'm feeding a troll, but now I have a nice little rant to e-mail people on why the RIAA shouldn't get into the Technology and Law business. Here we go... *dons Troll feeding suit*
.......... Thought so, troll.
1. She wouldn't have a career at all if it weren't for the exposure she got on major labels in her early years.
Nice theroy. Proof please?
2. The major labels are being facile if they ever pretend to care what happens to the Janis Ians of the world. Those are the artists they're losing money on. What they really care about is what happens to the Britneys, because that's where the bulk of their revenue is coming from. But the money Britney earns them is their fund for giving other artists a chance.
That's that's a major problem with our "culture", O Large Ugly Green One, when how much money an artist makes a corporation takes precedent over how good they actually are. Taking away my freedoms to protect the musical Pablum from Brtitney? Again, Mr. Troll, you've got your priorities seriously screwed up. Nice tits != Good Music. (No, I know how to spell her name. Think about it.)
If downloading cuts into Britney's sales (and that seems quite possible to me), it will lead to "marginal" artists getting dumped and fewer getting signed in the future. No exposure, no career. Make a list of all the successful professional musicians who have succeeded without any major-label help. Kind of got bogged down after Ani DiFranco, didn't you?
No kidding. Look, I don't wear a tin foil hat or anything, but if you think for one minute that an artist who gets popular on the 'net - without being in a record labels stable - would get any further than that, you're crazy. I'm sure that the RIAA has more than a few A&R people scouring the web for new band that might get popular without needing them. If they let that happen, it would prove just how ridiculous the RIAA's current business model actually is. That's why, troll - Ani DiFranco is the "One That Got Away". Rest assured that there will be others as well, once artists figure out that with the Internet, a CD maker and a bit of exposure, who needs the RIAA?
So yes, until there's a viable promotion infrastructure outside of the current major labels (and efforts at this are underway), downloading can hurt the Janis Ians, and the aspiring Janis Ians, despite her simplistic observation that incremental downloads aren't currently costing her anything.
Other than bandwidth, what, pray tell, are those downloads costing her? You said yourself that the record companies don't care about her, so why should she care about them? Putting up with 30+ years of RIAA Bovine Fecal Matter would not lead to a simplistic opinion. You'd rather trust Brtitney to inform you of what goes on? Now, that would be a simplistic opinion.
I'd better stop feeding you, Mr. Troll, since you're likely already ben stuffed full of RIAA platitudes and pure bullshit. Go away.
Soko
Spielberg says tha a fourth Indiana Jones flick is on the way too.
;^)
"It's a chance for all of us to go back and feel young and act young. Harrison is going to be full of energy, as he always is."
He concluded: "It's going to be very exciting. Even though he will be 62 by the time this film comes out, Harrison hasn't lost the snap in his whip."
My wife hopes I'm full of energy and haven't lost the snap in my (ahem) whip when I'm 62 as well.
Soko
*sigh* Troll feeding time...
If this piece of hardware didn't happen to run Linux the headline/summary/comment on the front page would have been dripping with sarcasm, contempt and ridicule.
And the problem with that is....????? All kidding aside, I don't think you can say that with certainty. Read on, oh Large, Green and Ugly One...
Don't get me wrong, it would be well deserved IMO, but I'm just saying... because it's a Linux story, it was put up with the straightest of faces. That's slashdot for ya. Go figure.
If you read the story, you'll find out the the devices OS is totally secondary to the main idea of the story - distributing technology to the poor and disadvantaged. That's the reason for the straight face. Besides, I'm sure that if it were BSD based it would get the same treatment.
Develop an idea that doesn't involve open source software that has even one significant flaw and it's "lame." Develop a stupid joke of an idea that runs linux and it's "pretty cool!"
Wrong. The pretty cool idea is there is now an in-expensive device that almost anyone in a poor country can afford to buy and use.
Besides, there are few publications that don't show thier political bias from time to time. A smart person learns to sepaprate opinion from fact.
This thing is stupid by the way. Completely idiotic. I actually thought it was some kind of joke at first.
It's no joke, my friend. Get used to it. This little tablet can be a useful device to someone who's never seen a computer before. It just takes imagination, innitiative and innovation - and from the people I've met that came to Canada from India those three things are in very plentiful supply over there.
BTW, there are several reasons that it was smart to choose Linux as the OS. The most prominent is that everyone who gets one of these can read the code and then learn and understand how thier device actually works. Another is the fact that no-one can hi-jack this initiative for thier own gain.
Let's say it was BSD based, and Company A created a "compatible" device with a few quirks in thier now closed OS. They under sell the free (as in speech) project and corner the market. Now, India's poor are "cash cows" to Company A if they want any of the benefits that thier technology can bring. With Linux, that is far less likely to happen, since any one who wants to start milking the cash cow must engineer thier own compatible OS in clean room conditions, which will drive up the price of the competing devices. The Linux OS still wins, stays free and the project continues on it's intended purpose - giving technology to the dis-adavntaged.
OK, Mr. Troll, you've been fed. Off with you now - back under your rock.
Anyone else realise that if this takes off, Linux market share will skyrocket? I could write a (wellll, another) sizeable novel on the implications of that. Yee haa, we're going to have some fun now!
It's times like this that remind me why I love technology!!!
Soko
I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.
Al.
No, it's not difficult for you. However, most people don't have a clue as to what a refresh rate is, let alone how to set it by hacking at various commands.
You can rant all you want about "people who don't want to learn the tools" and the other various regular geek arguments, but it boils down to this:
Until a parrot can install and configure a Linux installation, it will not pose a true threat to the Windows desktop OS monopoly.
Yeah, yeah, who wants that, blah blah, whatever. That's what Linux needs to succeed - simple, point and click and it just works installation and configuration (Mandrake is close and Suse [from the account of others] is perhaps closer, but both are not quite there, BTW) that is common to all distros. A tool for the drooling, unwashed masses, while we keep our "sup4r 1337 c0mm4nd l1n3 sk111z".
</rant>
Soko
There are lots of things that could be done to convince Microsoft that this is a really bad idea.
.Net code snippet there, bud. Interested in sharing? I've got some bitchin' PERL scripts here..."
;-)
Why? Why is it a bad idea for them to see the OSS community working? What would be bad about showing Microsoft that they can play fair and win?
Nevermind who they are and what they do, just trundle along merrily on your OSS way. Doing that instead of picking a fight, or better still actually welcoming them, will show them how to behave in a community. OK, they've been bad boys and have caused a lot of strife, but I believe in reform more that capital punishment.
"Proprietary software? No thanks. Heyyyy, like the
Don't forget that Microsoft employs geeks too. If we're nice to them (and just burn their Marketing Dept at the stake instead), maybe then they'll open up the locked and bolted doors of the Cathedral once in a while and let the Bazaar in for a look. Kinda like a garage sale.
Soko
Of course that's what standards bodies are for, but try to get a company - any company - to go along with a standard when they think they can create their own. If you own a standard that everyone uses, you own them, and your stock holders are laughing all the way to the bank. Think RamBus and thier shady, underhanded attempt at extracting tribute from the entire industry for thier "Intellectual Property" that they snuck into standard JEDEC RAM specs. They almost got away with it, too. There are many companies, Microsoft quite obviously included, who would swoon at "owning" a standard. The best way I can think of in ensuring "vendor neutral" is making absolutely certain all companies are aware of power grabs. Then one of 2 things will happen - the initiative will die on the vine and the issue will go away, or detente will be declared and things will actually be vendor neutral.
BTW, Microsoft pretty much does control the North American PC market. A bitch-slap is about all that Microsoft is going to get, alas, when what they need is a really bloody nose (IMHO). Like saying something to the effect of "OK, so it's a standard now. Fine. Standards mean you publish the specs for anyone - and we mean anyone - to produce products that can inter-operate, or we shut you down and take them anyway. Your choice." I've said a few times before that internationally recognised standards should carry the weight of law.
Soko
As stupid as this is, let's hope no-one gets any brighter any time soon. Heh - follow me here...
Let's say they apply one of thier DRM methods on that track. If my thinking is correct, overlaying any DRM data on silence means the DRM scheme is laid bare. Instant hack, and Linux is now hapilly playing music encrypted with the DRM scheme. Sound plausible?
Awww, c'mon. Somebody speak up. The silence is deafening... *rimshot*
Soko
Your problem is properly engineering your systems, bud. Engineering is a lot more than just picking good pieces - it's having those pieces fit criteria. Those criteria are fulfilling the intended use well and not consuming too may resources.
When I build a system, the first thing I do is ask "What is the major application of this box?" Gaming, CAD, simple e-mail type tasks, server, whatever - you pick the main function and go from there. The specs of your system are initially dependant on what you're trying to do with the machine.
Next is "How long is this machine needed before the user can upgrade again?", so that it doesn't end up a boat anchor in just 6 months. What and how the upgrades happen need to be fleshed out as well. For example, the user may be willing to use a G450 for CAD until next year when a Parhelia is available with stable drivers. Can you swap out the CPU easily? Will RAM be available 1 ½ years from now when it's needed? These things matter. "How fault tolerant is the application" is also of prime importance - a gaming box can be down for a day or 2, but a CAD machine that makes a person $ will require higher quaility innards so it's less likely to break, and I need say nothing about a server.
These 2 steps will give you the requirements for your machine.
Next, you set a budget in stone. Not just $, mind you, but time and frustration as well. These are known as resources. If you need a friend to help you, you count them as a resource as well. You do not over use any resources in a properly engineered system.
Now you can juggle components and vendors. If I'm building a CAD box, I concentrate resources on the CPU, graphics and display subsystems. For a file server, it's memory and I/O. You configure a system on paper, then make sure it will fit the requirements and not over-use any resources. If both statemnets are true, you then procure the pieces and use the resources. If not, your have to try again.
If you cannot re-work the resources so they fit the requirements, you need to re-evaluate the requirements and follow the process again iteratively, until the machine fits the resources. If this means you end up loosing the main application, you need more resources. If there's no more available no matter what, don't build the box.
Like I said, building a PC properly is more than just picking parts at a certain price. Follow proper engineering practice and you'll end up on budget every time.
Soko
Whoa! Bill should pay attention to what his marketdriods say. To wit:
Austria:
One of Microsoft's flagship government customers, the Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria, is the first government body in Europe to become a member of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative. As part of the program, the Austrian government is allowed access to the Windows XP source code. Program benefits, according to Microsoft, include better understanding of the technical underpinnings of the operating system, better protection against security vulnerabilities and a resource for writing custom applications.
*blink* Wha...? *blink*
Microsoft admits - in full view of the world - that having access to the source improves the security and useability of an Operating System. Didn't some two bit think tank outfit just say that having access to the source was bad?
That's a keeper if there ever was one - Microsoft just made the case for Free Software in spite of itself.
Soko
Touché.
;-)
This is (somewhat) more important than it looks, folks. When the ADTI folks accuse OSS projects of being less than professional, we can simply point to the origional document and say that this "Think Tank" can't even correctly write American Engish.
Rushing the document out the door without proper proof reading shows un-professionalism from ADTI in completeing thier task, a clearly worded and concise critique of the GPL. Pointing out this fact may damage thier credibility in a way that regular folks will understand. This should then allow the larger arguments of an opinion bought and paid for by the BSA in the door, too. We win.
Think tank indeed. Wonder if the CSS camp got it's money's worth?
Soko
The same principle applies to natural and computer languages - the more you know, the better you understand the fundamentals.
How about knowing multiple OSes is good for you? Same logic applies. I "speak" Windows, *nix, MacOS, IOS and even some VMS. Now, I'm not afraid of any computer - I know I can figure out what to do with minimal info available.
If everyone didn't care so much about what the OS was because they were afraid of something new and just chose the right tool for the job, "vendor lock-in" might go away. A whole lot more understanding would come about in the IT field, in any event.
Soko
Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise:
;^)
Right. Hillary Rosen and Bill Gates in the same room might bring together a critical mass of ego + arrogance, cause a thermal-nuclearesque meltdown, explode and take out the whole lot. Saaaayyyy.....
1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes.
HOW??? AI? Hunh? How is a file supposed to know it's copy unless you tell it? Even then, it might not accept that it's a copy (Like Christine "I AM NOT A BRITTNEY CLONE!" Aguli-whatsherface) And just WHO is this artist that puts out high quality stuff?
2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
Soooo, we can trade Brittney and N'Stync "songs" all we want, but not (insert artist of actual value here)? Can we have it the other way, please - bandwidth is valuable, and Kaaza is hurting my link that does productive stuff.
Soko
howbout RealLife?
Guess you took the Blue Pill.
Soko
and for those still looking for PGP and unwilling to use GPG, there's still KaZaA.
OK - do we use that to make sure we have no privacy left and make using any encryption redundant, or do we use it to make sure we get a copy before they all dissapear?
grokster, bud, grokster. 8-)
Soko
In many judicial systems, the jury has the main responsibility of determining guilt, based on their evaluation of permissible evidence. Your idea is flawed at least in the following ways:
Agreed - trail by a jury of the accuseds peers is the best way known. Note however I never said anything about a lawyer determining the outcome of such a trial.
First, you are replacing the judgement of a dozen jurors with the judgement of one or two lawyers. This creates more room for prejudice of all sorts, and essentially makes it impossible to prosecute a lawyer who pleads his client to a more severe punishment than necessary. The lawyer just has to say: "I honestly thought he was guilty."
No, I am not. If the accused says to his attourney "Ya, I butchered the ol' lady. Get me off.", the attourney's opinion (IMHO) is now tainted anyways. If it isn't, that attourney is not interested in justice, only collecting his fees. If it is tainted, he should be looking to make sure his clients rights are still thouroughly protected, murdering scum that he is.
Second, these lawyers are permitted to see a range of evidence - including illegally obtained evidence - that will color their judgement. Jurors are simply not told about these illegal evidence, and so it will taint them less.
Again, a given. An attourney should still not allow illegal evidence against his client, since that means it would be open season on everyone. This goes back to protecting the rights of the accused, not whether or not the accused is guilty. Some one needs to be there when the cops don't play fair, too. It's a shame that it sometimes means a murderer walks away scot free.
Third, it will greatly reduce the things that a client tells the lawyer, because they will fear what the lawyer might think. This is detrimental to justice because some of these facts might actually exonerate the client.
Hunh? Your logic is flawed in that you make the erroneous assumption that I believe lawyers should determine guilt or innocence. I don't - only that they shouldn't lie or mis-direct the truth in order to facilitate a miscarriage of justice.
For this and other reasons, lawyers must be required to act entirely on their client's best interests, not on their personal judgement of the client's guilt or innocense.
...and to hell with the best interests of society at large, it seems. That is why lawyers aren't held in terribly high esteem anymore - most seem more interested in what's best for their clients, and by extension themselves, than in what's best for society at large. They need to win - lady justice be damned. IMHO this "Winning at all costs" attitude is the root cause of Mr. William Gates IIIs "popularity" around these parts, BTW - if he played fair, we would likely get along better. The justice system should not be a game, where one "wins" - it should be about divining the truth and dispensing justice.
Soko
IP Lawyer...
;^])
Sheesh, enough with the lawyer bashing already.
What? He's dead already? Okey dokie... *Puts down sledge*
(Sorry - that one was just hanging there. I had to.
Lawyers are just people like the rest of us with a job to do - sometimes their clients are wrong, sometimes right.
I'm sensitive to a lawyers plight - at times they have to defend the undefensable, and do a good job of it. That being said, I'd rather they try to get the minimum penalty for thier clients when they know they're guilty, rather than allow criminal behaviour to go un-punished. Justice and all that.
Next time you're up against the RIAA in court, I'd like to see you decline a lawyer on the grounds that the job is of "dubious ethical value".
As long as my attourney is in it to prove my point, not just take my money, he's not of "dubious ethical value" at all. That goes for the one on the other side of the argument. Anyone who believes in thier cause and is willing to argue with reason it's merits, is not of questionalble character. The ones that just prolong trials in order to get thier new yacht are.
I know it's oh so trendy to constantly attack the legal profession, but really. Grow up.
When I see that the legal profession is only interested in justice, and not money and power, I'll put down the sledge, mmmmkay?
Soko
Nope. Besides ATI using HydraVision (as the AC points out), a better name for this beast would be Cerberus, the Three Headed Hound from Hell. That sounds cool, too.
Wait... Does that make me a marketer? Ewwww, I feel slimey now. Time to take a shower...
Soko
Preach on, brutha.
;^D).
You do relise that there are ways of getting anyone and everyone involved in creating Open Source tools for education. Make sure that everyone knows that you can contribute whether you're in Microsoft's backyard or across the globe.
OSS tools for education. Hmmmmm.... Let's ponder for a few minutes on this, shall we?
1 - We end up with a standard set of baseline tools that all educators in the US (maybe Canada, too) can use. The same grade book means more consistant results reporting.
2 - Educators and students will be exposed to Open Source software, and can contribute them selves via bug reports. (As well, junior programmers can even contribute code
3 - Using/contributing to OSS builds community (potentially across the country), which IMHO is sorely lacking from todays curicula.
As well, the tools themselves provide education in how computers and networks function. The same cannot be easily said about Closed Source Software.
4 - There's no reason to abandon Windows immediately, since you can run Windows and use Linux apps anyway (X termial for Windows of some sort), or even reverse the roles by using Terminal Services(This little utility helps in that regard). That creates a relatively painless migration path. It also shows kids that there's more to IT than Windows and Macintoshes.
These are benefits in addition to those espoused by Linux advocates. Sometimes the best competitive features of a tool are not it's price.
Soko
The Reg is being subtly smart on this one. If you read the story with your ad blocker off, what do you see on the left side banner ad?
:-D
An orangish coloured box with a picture of a vacuum cleaner on it, over which are the words "Clean Business?" . The ad then flips to just the background with the following message:
Our aim is to remove the growing threat of piracy.
For further information on the resources available, including details on the authorised distribution channel, click here.
Microsoft
Coincedence, or has that ad with the thinly veiled threat of software auditing been placed there specifically to pound home a message?
I laughed when I realised what the Reg was doing. Summary: We have a story about MS being unreasonable in thier licensing on which we have an ad threatening businesses with audits, more evidence of how heavy handed they are in regards to licensing. The kicker? Microsoft likely paid to have the ad on the Reg, and the Reg, in true BOFH style, shoved thier nose in it.
I wonder how long the ad will last on that page...
Soko