The MPAA needs to address this image problem. Fix the image, and the piracy problem will take care of itself.
The "image" they have to fix, in my opinion, is to disband the cartel they are operating and start competing amongst each other like companies in most other industries. Competition will force the industry to fight for customers based on price, value-added content and services, methods of delivery and quality of their products. Healthy competition will force them to truly innovate to survive.
But MPAA and entertainment industry in general will not do this themselves. There's too much risk in free market and competition. They prefer to minimize the risk by bribing legislators to pass favorable and unfair laws, fixing prices, engage in deceptive accounting practices, enforce illegal trade restrictions, and engage in countless other illegal and/or unfair anti-competitive practices. They prefer to collect taxes and surcharges as government-guaranteed revenue streams - taxing blank tapes, CD-Rs, recorders, etc., and guaranteeing their incomes by taking away people's rights.
Yeah, I'd say they have to "fix" more than just their image.
Yeah, but this requires an arbitrary amount of capital for your "vote" and is a dangerous principle to take up. It rewards people with more capital with even more control of what should be a public interest - i.e. in the interest of all residents, not just those with the money.
And I don't want you using the government guns to force me to act (or not act) in a certain way to fulfill your ideas of what 'should' be done any more than I want the DemoRepublicans to do it. The only solution that doesn't involve one of us seizing control of the government and using it against the other is to make the government so weak that no matter who has control it can't be used to stomp all over the rights of everyone else.
This works nicely on national level, but I don't see how this makes sense internationally. For example, Badnarik states:
I don't oppose growth or success. I support unrestricted trade across international borders, and I support companies developing themselves internationally. But the fact is that corporate growth today isn't natural market growth. It's growth encouraged and enhanced by government-dispensed privilege. It's artificial, and it distorts rather than serves the market.
This sounds fine and dandy until you consider that other governments don't think this way. They are corrupt - whether legally in the open or under the table - they will subsidize their own corporations so that the U.S. businesses cannot compete with them at any level. This hurts the U.S. economy. So, what is a "weak" government going to do to fight this? A "strong" government would create agreements and treaties with other countries to create a level playing field and have a way to punish or control those corporations or nations that engage in such things as dumping, selling at a loss, and other anti-competitive practices. And I don't mean weak and strong as in good and bad - just using arbitrary labels.
Get a grip. Yes, some would be auctioned off for their natural resources. How is this different from today?
The obvious difference from today is that today if significant number of people do not want the land to be auctioned off from the state, they have an option of electing people who are against such auctioning. If they were all private lands, people - i.e. state/county/etc. residents - would have no say at all what should be done with private lands. The idea is that parks and reserves are in "public interest," and you are part of that if you live in the area - state, county, city, or even nation (for national reserves); if those interests are transferred to private owners, by almost any definition of "private" public interests will not be guaranteed.
1. We have a written contract dated 9/2/03 with Emir Sakic (a lead developer of Mambo) that expressly contains the provision "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com [Furthermore's parent company]. This contracted has been provide to Robert Castley, project manager of Mambo OS.
I think that rebuts your point, and I stand by my comment (although I also stand by my disclaimer that if the Literati Group is lying, then all bets are off).
But it doesn't rebut anything - you can't take unsupported claims from their website as a statement of a fact. This is Sakic's response:
Back in September 2003 Mr Connolly paid me to do the Mambo Open Source customization for his site Literatigroup.com. There was no copyright agreement or contract signed.
Further, you state regarding Sakic's communication:
Hehe I was afraid you would feel like that
That kind of reply is odd and doesn't instill faith that he's on the up & up. Is that proof? No. Could Connolly be lying about Emir's email? Yes. But Emir could be lying too. Since neither of them are sharing all the documents, it makes me distrust them both. That's all I allege.
It doesn't matter what words he used in his communication. In this type of case, the side making the accusation - Literati - especially when it attempts to play scare tactics against software users like that, has to show some proof of their allegations - copied code, proof of copyright, etc.; Otherwise, they are likely pulling another SCO on everyone.
To shoehorn what happened with Emir into your example, it's like this: person works for company A, keeps the code he/she wrote for company A, then delivers that code (with lots of changes to cover up the copying) to company B.
But that's not what happened in this case on several separate points, at least from reading what's available.
1. The developer in question was not an employee of Furthermore, only a contractor. Now, IANAL, but I have implemented a lot of work as a consultant at client sites where copyrights on the works were not transferred to the client, but remained with the company who supplied and customized the software, licensed for client's use, modification, etc., but not redistribution. The situation is similar to Mambo and Furthermore, since Furthermore does not own Mambo server software, and it contracted out some customization. So, if they wanted to acquire copyrights from a contractor company/individual that customized someone else's software for them, there probably had to be a written legal agreement with the clear intent for transfer/ownership of the copyrights on those customizations. In case of absence of such an agreement, the copyright should stay with the original creator of those works - i.e. the developer, or the contracting party. Any legal experts feel free to correct.
I guess it's still to be determined whether such an agreement existed or not.
2. As you state, ideas cannot be copyrighted. If one person had an idea X and wrote an implementation A, there's nothing preventing you from writing an implementation B for the same or a similar idea, even if you originally provided implementation A and intentionally transferred copyrights of that implementation to someone else. Now, if you copied the same code without permission, then you'd be likely violating copyrights; but there's no indication of that in this case - and the burden of proof is on Furthermore.
Lastly, not replying to what you said, in response to Furthermore's letter:
Lastly, we deeply regret that we have no choice but to seek remedy from the users of Mambo. Mambo has explicitly informed us that "the Mambo project can offer no further assistance in this matter. Mambo can not be party to any disputes between individuals or companies concerning the use of Mambo." Plainly, it's you the user they've left holding the bag.
This is bullshit, and goes to demonstrate Furthermore's executives' personal vendetta rather than a search for legal resolution. Furthermore can definitely go after the developer who they believe mis-appropriated, took out without permission, violated a contract, or committed a copyright infringement against their "intellectual property." It's not up to Mambo to leave users "holding the bag" since Furthermore can still sue Mambo, their developers, and/or their own contractor for any alleged violations. Indeed I agree that playing such scare tactics against mostly innocent bystanders before proving their case against Mambo first is "not prudent."
The *users* of Mambo are *not* in violation of any copyright law. As an example, it is not infringement of copyright for me to listen to a copy of a song -- only to *copy* it.
I agree with your other points, but you may be wrong here. Copyright violation, from what I've been told, does not take into consideration any intent. So, if you download a Mambo server and/or copy and install it somewhere, and you "don't have permission" - then you are violating copyright holders' exclusive rights - infringing. You would be violating even if you didn't know, had no reason to know, or did not intend to do so.
This may not make sense, but that's where the law stands, AFAIK. Disclaimer: IANAL; for legal advise, consult a lawyer.
Browsers are not supposed to show ALT attribute text when images load; ALT is for an alternative text when images don't load (i.e. client is a text-only browser, or images are disabled, or image is not available). But I do remember a setting like "show ALT text in tooltips" somewhere in Windows or IE. It must be that "web team" has that enabled and assumes that everyone does also.
Most people will never switch browsers and SP2 is for them.
I wonder how many people who will not switch browsers will actually install SP2. My guess is if you are trying to keep your Windows uptodate with the latest patches and service packs, you are more likely to know about and switch to Firefox, or another browser for that matter (not including corporate users with IE only policy).
I was playing with 1.0PR last night and found the firebird developers have already mimicked IE. The "info bar" which displays when something is blocked is blatantly "stolen" from IE.
It's more like they are improving on each other's features. Mozilla has had the blocked pop-up notification in the status bar since some time after they had an option for blocking pop-ups. IE the browser (not 3rd party commercial plugins) hasn't had pop-up blocking until very recently. So, none of them are really blatantly "stolen" - they are just healthy UI feature/usability competition which browser market so desperately needs.
I personally don't like the info bar from what I've seen from your screenshot. It looks too intrusive to the eye, and 99.9% of the time I could care less if a pop-up ad is getting blocked - if I do, I could check the status bar for that 0.1% of the time. But then again, I don't use Firefox as my main browser either...
You can run your video drivers in kernel space, but what is a problem with having printer, scanner, camera, PDA, mass storage, and many other drivers run in user space. With proper abstraction, maybe you can even specify which one runs where.
Even with video drivers, why can't scheduler give a realtime priority to a user space process? Can't you just not switch it out?
Run hardware drivers in userspace with binary compability to major kernel (or abstraction layer) versions. This will allow manufacturers to make binary-only drivers with no GPL restrictions that will not crash the kernel and the OS even if they are full of bugs.
Do this before Longhorn comes out. If I had enough knowledge I'd do it myself.
N. Korea could be sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world and we wouldn't invade.
It's a valid argument, but you are mixing up a timeline. If North Korea had the largest oil reserve in the world, the situation wouldn't even get to this point. Notice how none of the "oil-rich" countries that U.S. dumps loads of mullah on have any significant military power. If the terrain that N. Korea occupies had any substantial oil reserves, the political and economic atmosphere in the region would be vastly different from what it is now.
Glomming two related services into one blob of unmaintainable code is not necessarily a benefit.
I don't see it like this. File metadata andcontent are already tracked by journaling filesystems like XFS and Reiser and they do not result in "one blob of unmaintainable code." If implemented properly (and I am not proposing that WinFS would or will be), neither should this.
Do you really want the possibility that your inseperable all-in-one file system is using more space for the equivalent of directory entries than for data itself?
Again, I don't see how this is "inseparable" and from what. You should be able to specify when you create a filesystem what type of optional data you want indexed, if any. One good change that should result from this type of filesystem is making static directory trees obsolete; and defining a better, more intuitive interface to a filesystem.
Remember this isn't about special cases like a user too lazy to sort their home directory or documents folder, but applying that overhead to the entire system. With all the tweaks people do to improve general FS performance and reliability, why would anyone think adding overhead is a good idea unless you need, and I mean need those features?
If you do indeed need those features so badly, why not just buy or use one of dozens of existing document storage and search facilities?
These are valid arguments for today but may not hold up for future. There are a lot of features implemented in most layers of software today that would have been a big waste of resources just a decade ago.
You do realize WinFS is NTFS + a SQL layer, right?
Yes. But storage is not a layer on top of a filesystem but rather a service or a feature of a desktop environment. For a true filesystem implementation, there should be a new OS filesystem API.
If you are asking me, it would be "better" if files just had metadata properties associated with them and their metadata and contents stored in an easily searchable manner. So, I would say it's probably "worse" to have that functionality implemented in your desktop environment, or any higher layer that does not interface directly with a filesystem or is implemented into a filesystem itself.
One correction - filesystems (at least most UNIX filesystems) are not constrained to tree structure
You can only access a desired file by its directory path (whether one or more), unless you get involved into a lower level filesystem-specific calls. The directory structure is an unnecessary "static" interface to files since files can be classified more efficiently by indexing their own extended metadata and contents.
That's not a filesystem, but a layer on top of it that tracks data in an SQL database. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but it's kind of like locatedb with more features and data to track, that runs a cron job every once in a while.
This is not the same as a filesystem itself being implemented in an easily searchable fashion, getting rid of the static directory tree structures altogether, or just having it as an option for backwards compatibility as one of the properties.
This could just be a tactic by Microsoft to push their software. Think about it, a somber looking Balmer (if that's even possible) saying "We tried to negotiate with the OSS community, but because of their ignorance we wern't able to come to an agreement"
I don't know what the exact market numbers are, but fortunately, Microsoft is not in a position to do that. More importantly, they have to prove how SenderID will actually stop spam - it won't - spammers will use SenderID, and spammer-happy ISPs will gladly provide the service.
Also, keep in mind that SenderID is just a specification. We are talking about implementations of a specification. We are talking about licensing a specification on how to get a list of servers allowed to send mail!
The problem is that there are several software patents associated with SenderID (thank you USPTO!), and therefore it is nothing but a legally crippled piece of paper. Imagine if HTTP, SMTP, POP3, etc. were patented and held hostage by several companies who did not allow any open source implementations - where would they be today? Nowhere, probably replaced by different protocols that had non-crippled specifications.
Of course, at the same time they will start more FUD sites touting the benifits of Sender ID and why it will ONLY run on their software.
You won't have to look far for that. Just look at the SenderID FAQ:
Q5: What do I need to do for binary and/or source code distribution? A5: Many open source licenses require you to include copyright notices distributed in the code itself identifying the authors of the code being distributed. Some open source licenses also require you to include the license under which you received the code with the code that you distribute so that downstream users of the code are made aware of the terms and conditions under which they can use the code. Microsoft does not require any notice or other attribution when you disclose or distribute your implementation in binary form.
Look at them touting themselves for not requiring copyright notices for an implementation of a specification while open source licenses require those for actual programs. Just a piece of MS' usual FUD propaganda.
As far as I know, much of innovation done by technology companies these days is meant to be demonstrated by thickness of their software patent portfolios, mostly consisting of obvious ideas, or things that have existed for decades, or both. As far as being "behind," Microsoft looks to be about 2 decades behind in network transparency, multiple virtual desktops and just about every useful window manager feature in existence (and there are a lot).
It's just boilerplate legalese for saying "we're authorized by the true owners to make these accusations even though we ourselves have no such rights"
IANAL, but the only problem I see with your argument is that you are not finishing that sentence, and you are missing its meaning by quoting or paraphrasing only the first part.
we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification [emphasis mine]
Now, if the sentence ended with the word "rights" or there was a phrase "which we suspect are" after it, then your argument makes sense. But worded as it is, the phrase exclusive rights being infringed is directly related to the word "owners" - and if they do not represent any such owners (whose exclusive rights are being infringed), then their statement is false.
If I want the public to sit on my bench, I put it in the park. If I don't want the public to sit on my bench, I put it in my back yard. It's not up to the public to magically read my mind or to stay off all benches everywhere; it's up to me to place the bench and any relevant signs so the public can deduce my intentions.
It's dangerous to start down this road of analogies. There's always someone who will come along and say - what if you unintentionally left your folding chair or a bike in the park, can someone assume that you left it for public use and steal it? Comparing the use of AP signal to stealing tangible things is much worse than comparing apples and oranges.
One thing to keep in mind is that AP broadcasts its signal outside to the public who can reach it. The broadcasted signal itself is public, but equipment is owned by someone. If the owner of the equipment did not intend to make the said equipment available for public use, and left the AP unsecured, then if you use the AP, you'd be using that property without the owner's permission. That said, I don't see how this can be illegal.
We use others' properties without permission all the time every day. Do you visit websites that only have EULAs and AUPs that explicitly grant you permission to look at their website under certain conditions? Consider that if you visit websites that do not grant an explicit permission to use then the owner may not want you to use his/her equipment (leased or owned) and bandwidth. You'd be effectively "stealing" this stuff. But then, you will say, if they don't want public to access their website contents, they should not put it up, or they should secure it by requiring authentication.
Both - websites and APs make their availability public knowledge. Both should secure whatever is not meant to be used by public. And "secure" in this case does not mean make it "unbreakable"; that may be impossible. But secure in a way that tells people that it is intended for members or private use and not open to general use.
One excuse that is often used is that people do not know how to do this, so they leave their AP open for anyone's use. Sorry, but the same thing happens to people who do not know how to set up authentication on their website and put their private documents there. In other words, at some point, you have to know what you are doing, or ask someone who does.
Finally, there will be some more ignorant people that will say - oh, but all websites are meant to be public, and all APs are meant to be private. Of course, that's wrong - there are countless number of websites that keep use and information for certain members and/or owners only (how about this one you are reading right now), and countless number of APs that are used for public access.
Right; disk and RAID controllers screw up, cables fail, memory goes bad, power failures mess up out of order and track at once writes, and all sorts of other issues can cause a filesystem to break in ways a journal cannot protect you from -- that's the entire point;
I see what you are saying but journaling does protect you from most of these. You are saying what happens in cases where it doesn't. In that case, at least in my experience, reiserfsck has worked several times on a dying HD. But don't take this as a general theory, for all I know you are right and ext2 fsck is better at what it does.
it's all well and good being able to replay a journal and have it work fine 9 times out of 10
FUD.
when things go wrong I'd rather be using something mature with good, proven recovery tools than the latest and greatest just-released filesystem.
mp3.com (when it was at its peak), half of SourceForge.net, and many others do not agree with this your statement. ReiserFS is mature. You could argue this with Reiser4.
Whatever; you can have your few percentage points better performance, and I can have my quarter of a century of use and development, and we'll both try to remember to keep backups of anything important either way;)
Q5: What do I need to do for binary and/or source code distribution?
A5: Many open source licenses require you to include copyright notices distributed in the code itself identifying the authors of the code being distributed. Some open source licenses also require you to include the license under which you received the code with the code that you distribute so that downstream users of the code are made aware of the terms and conditions under which they can use the code. Microsoft does not require any notice or other attribution when you disclose or distribute your implementation in binary form.
The above is a variation of MS propaganda against OSS; taking shots at OSS while pretending to answer a "question," failing to distinguish that they are comparing their license for a specification vs open source licenses for actual programs.
Anyway, I read most of the license and the sections 2.1 and 2.2 seem incompatible with most open source licenses that I am aware of. Why? Because both the patent and source code distribution license grants are explicitly stated as:
nontransferable, non-sublicenseable, personal.
IANAL, but to me this means that if you are a recipient of a program under this license (from a party who accepted this license), you have no right to redistribute the source code unless you sign a separate license with Microsoft. This, in turn, means that the source code distribution license is held hostage by Microsoft - i.e. they may, at any time, change the terms or discontinue this license offer and no new developers (who have not agreed to the original license) would be able to redistribute the source of the existing open source programs implementing the specification.
Once this becomes popular, as Microsoft seems to hope, they may even (or at least have an option to) say - sorry, but we are no longer offering the "source code distribution" option with our new licensees, so sorry, really.
So, at the end, again they hope, everyone would have granted their patent licenses to MS, and MS would be in charge of the terms for the source code distribution.
Duh; no filesystem *needs* fsck if you don't mind fixing it yourself with a hex editor when it breaks.
If ReiserFS "breaks" it replays the affected transactions, it does not need to fsck. If your drive is bad, or your installation broken, then it's unsafe with *any* filesystem, not just ReiserFS.
Yup; Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are the three most important things when it comes to evaluating new filesystems, especially ones with a recent history of data loss, broken fsck, and moronic vendors.
No, but FUD is one thing to keep in mind when reading posts like these, talking about some "history" and facts and things like that.
ext2/3 must be pretty bad to make you lot want to switch so badly:/
I don't "want to" switch. I did that few years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
The "image" they have to fix, in my opinion, is to disband the cartel they are operating and start competing amongst each other like companies in most other industries. Competition will force the industry to fight for customers based on price, value-added content and services, methods of delivery and quality of their products. Healthy competition will force them to truly innovate to survive.
But MPAA and entertainment industry in general will not do this themselves. There's too much risk in free market and competition. They prefer to minimize the risk by bribing legislators to pass favorable and unfair laws, fixing prices, engage in deceptive accounting practices, enforce illegal trade restrictions, and engage in countless other illegal and/or unfair anti-competitive practices. They prefer to collect taxes and surcharges as government-guaranteed revenue streams - taxing blank tapes, CD-Rs, recorders, etc., and guaranteeing their incomes by taking away people's rights.
Yeah, I'd say they have to "fix" more than just their image.
Yeah, but this requires an arbitrary amount of capital for your "vote" and is a dangerous principle to take up. It rewards people with more capital with even more control of what should be a public interest - i.e. in the interest of all residents, not just those with the money.
This works nicely on national level, but I don't see how this makes sense internationally. For example, Badnarik states:
This sounds fine and dandy until you consider that other governments don't think this way. They are corrupt - whether legally in the open or under the table - they will subsidize their own corporations so that the U.S. businesses cannot compete with them at any level. This hurts the U.S. economy. So, what is a "weak" government going to do to fight this? A "strong" government would create agreements and treaties with other countries to create a level playing field and have a way to punish or control those corporations or nations that engage in such things as dumping, selling at a loss, and other anti-competitive practices. And I don't mean weak and strong as in good and bad - just using arbitrary labels.
The obvious difference from today is that today if significant number of people do not want the land to be auctioned off from the state, they have an option of electing people who are against such auctioning. If they were all private lands, people - i.e. state/county/etc. residents - would have no say at all what should be done with private lands. The idea is that parks and reserves are in "public interest," and you are part of that if you live in the area - state, county, city, or even nation (for national reserves); if those interests are transferred to private owners, by almost any definition of "private" public interests will not be guaranteed.
But it doesn't rebut anything - you can't take unsupported claims from their website as a statement of a fact. This is Sakic's response:
Further, you state regarding Sakic's communication:
It doesn't matter what words he used in his communication. In this type of case, the side making the accusation - Literati - especially when it attempts to play scare tactics against software users like that, has to show some proof of their allegations - copied code, proof of copyright, etc.; Otherwise, they are likely pulling another SCO on everyone.
But that's not what happened in this case on several separate points, at least from reading what's available.
1. The developer in question was not an employee of Furthermore, only a contractor. Now, IANAL, but I have implemented a lot of work as a consultant at client sites where copyrights on the works were not transferred to the client, but remained with the company who supplied and customized the software, licensed for client's use, modification, etc., but not redistribution. The situation is similar to Mambo and Furthermore, since Furthermore does not own Mambo server software, and it contracted out some customization. So, if they wanted to acquire copyrights from a contractor company/individual that customized someone else's software for them, there probably had to be a written legal agreement with the clear intent for transfer/ownership of the copyrights on those customizations. In case of absence of such an agreement, the copyright should stay with the original creator of those works - i.e. the developer, or the contracting party. Any legal experts feel free to correct.
I guess it's still to be determined whether such an agreement existed or not.
2. As you state, ideas cannot be copyrighted. If one person had an idea X and wrote an implementation A, there's nothing preventing you from writing an implementation B for the same or a similar idea, even if you originally provided implementation A and intentionally transferred copyrights of that implementation to someone else. Now, if you copied the same code without permission, then you'd be likely violating copyrights; but there's no indication of that in this case - and the burden of proof is on Furthermore.
Lastly, not replying to what you said, in response to Furthermore's letter:
This is bullshit, and goes to demonstrate Furthermore's executives' personal vendetta rather than a search for legal resolution. Furthermore can definitely go after the developer who they believe mis-appropriated, took out without permission, violated a contract, or committed a copyright infringement against their "intellectual property." It's not up to Mambo to leave users "holding the bag" since Furthermore can still sue Mambo, their developers, and/or their own contractor for any alleged violations. Indeed I agree that playing such scare tactics against mostly innocent bystanders before proving their case against Mambo first is "not prudent."
I agree with your other points, but you may be wrong here. Copyright violation, from what I've been told, does not take into consideration any intent. So, if you download a Mambo server and/or copy and install it somewhere, and you "don't have permission" - then you are violating copyright holders' exclusive rights - infringing. You would be violating even if you didn't know, had no reason to know, or did not intend to do so.
This may not make sense, but that's where the law stands, AFAIK. Disclaimer: IANAL; for legal advise, consult a lawyer.
Browsers are not supposed to show ALT attribute text when images load; ALT is for an alternative text when images don't load (i.e. client is a text-only browser, or images are disabled, or image is not available). But I do remember a setting like "show ALT text in tooltips" somewhere in Windows or IE. It must be that "web team" has that enabled and assumes that everyone does also.
I wonder how many people who will not switch browsers will actually install SP2. My guess is if you are trying to keep your Windows uptodate with the latest patches and service packs, you are more likely to know about and switch to Firefox, or another browser for that matter (not including corporate users with IE only policy).
It's more like they are improving on each other's features. Mozilla has had the blocked pop-up notification in the status bar since some time after they had an option for blocking pop-ups. IE the browser (not 3rd party commercial plugins) hasn't had pop-up blocking until very recently. So, none of them are really blatantly "stolen" - they are just healthy UI feature/usability competition which browser market so desperately needs.
I personally don't like the info bar from what I've seen from your screenshot. It looks too intrusive to the eye, and 99.9% of the time I could care less if a pop-up ad is getting blocked - if I do, I could check the status bar for that 0.1% of the time. But then again, I don't use Firefox as my main browser either...
You can run your video drivers in kernel space, but what is a problem with having printer, scanner, camera, PDA, mass storage, and many other drivers run in user space. With proper abstraction, maybe you can even specify which one runs where.
Even with video drivers, why can't scheduler give a realtime priority to a user space process? Can't you just not switch it out?
Or do I not know what I am talking about?
Run hardware drivers in userspace with binary compability to major kernel (or abstraction layer) versions. This will allow manufacturers to make binary-only drivers with no GPL restrictions that will not crash the kernel and the OS even if they are full of bugs.
Do this before Longhorn comes out. If I had enough knowledge I'd do it myself.
It's a valid argument, but you are mixing up a timeline. If North Korea had the largest oil reserve in the world, the situation wouldn't even get to this point. Notice how none of the "oil-rich" countries that U.S. dumps loads of mullah on have any significant military power. If the terrain that N. Korea occupies had any substantial oil reserves, the political and economic atmosphere in the region would be vastly different from what it is now.
I don't see it like this. File metadata andcontent are already tracked by journaling filesystems like XFS and Reiser and they do not result in "one blob of unmaintainable code." If implemented properly (and I am not proposing that WinFS would or will be), neither should this.
Again, I don't see how this is "inseparable" and from what. You should be able to specify when you create a filesystem what type of optional data you want indexed, if any. One good change that should result from this type of filesystem is making static directory trees obsolete; and defining a better, more intuitive interface to a filesystem.
These are valid arguments for today but may not hold up for future. There are a lot of features implemented in most layers of software today that would have been a big waste of resources just a decade ago.
Yes. But storage is not a layer on top of a filesystem but rather a service or a feature of a desktop environment. For a true filesystem implementation, there should be a new OS filesystem API.
If you are asking me, it would be "better" if files just had metadata properties associated with them and their metadata and contents stored in an easily searchable manner. So, I would say it's probably "worse" to have that functionality implemented in your desktop environment, or any higher layer that does not interface directly with a filesystem or is implemented into a filesystem itself.
You can only access a desired file by its directory path (whether one or more), unless you get involved into a lower level filesystem-specific calls. The directory structure is an unnecessary "static" interface to files since files can be classified more efficiently by indexing their own extended metadata and contents.
That's not a filesystem, but a layer on top of it that tracks data in an SQL database. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but it's kind of like locatedb with more features and data to track, that runs a cron job every once in a while.
This is not the same as a filesystem itself being implemented in an easily searchable fashion, getting rid of the static directory tree structures altogether, or just having it as an option for backwards compatibility as one of the properties.
I don't know what the exact market numbers are, but fortunately, Microsoft is not in a position to do that. More importantly, they have to prove how SenderID will actually stop spam - it won't - spammers will use SenderID, and spammer-happy ISPs will gladly provide the service.
Also, keep in mind that SenderID is just a specification. We are talking about implementations of a specification. We are talking about licensing a specification on how to get a list of servers allowed to send mail!
The problem is that there are several software patents associated with SenderID (thank you USPTO!), and therefore it is nothing but a legally crippled piece of paper. Imagine if HTTP, SMTP, POP3, etc. were patented and held hostage by several companies who did not allow any open source implementations - where would they be today? Nowhere, probably replaced by different protocols that had non-crippled specifications.
You won't have to look far for that. Just look at the SenderID FAQ:
Look at them touting themselves for not requiring copyright notices for an implementation of a specification while open source licenses require those for actual programs. Just a piece of MS' usual FUD propaganda.
As far as I know, much of innovation done by technology companies these days is meant to be demonstrated by thickness of their software patent portfolios, mostly consisting of obvious ideas, or things that have existed for decades, or both. As far as being "behind," Microsoft looks to be about 2 decades behind in network transparency, multiple virtual desktops and just about every useful window manager feature in existence (and there are a lot).
IANAL, but the only problem I see with your argument is that you are not finishing that sentence, and you are missing its meaning by quoting or paraphrasing only the first part.
we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification [emphasis mine]
Now, if the sentence ended with the word "rights" or there was a phrase "which we suspect are" after it, then your argument makes sense. But worded as it is, the phrase exclusive rights being infringed is directly related to the word "owners" - and if they do not represent any such owners (whose exclusive rights are being infringed), then their statement is false.
It's dangerous to start down this road of analogies. There's always someone who will come along and say - what if you unintentionally left your folding chair or a bike in the park, can someone assume that you left it for public use and steal it? Comparing the use of AP signal to stealing tangible things is much worse than comparing apples and oranges.
One thing to keep in mind is that AP broadcasts its signal outside to the public who can reach it. The broadcasted signal itself is public, but equipment is owned by someone. If the owner of the equipment did not intend to make the said equipment available for public use, and left the AP unsecured, then if you use the AP, you'd be using that property without the owner's permission. That said, I don't see how this can be illegal.
We use others' properties without permission all the time every day. Do you visit websites that only have EULAs and AUPs that explicitly grant you permission to look at their website under certain conditions? Consider that if you visit websites that do not grant an explicit permission to use then the owner may not want you to use his/her equipment (leased or owned) and bandwidth. You'd be effectively "stealing" this stuff. But then, you will say, if they don't want public to access their website contents, they should not put it up, or they should secure it by requiring authentication.
Both - websites and APs make their availability public knowledge. Both should secure whatever is not meant to be used by public. And "secure" in this case does not mean make it "unbreakable"; that may be impossible. But secure in a way that tells people that it is intended for members or private use and not open to general use.
One excuse that is often used is that people do not know how to do this, so they leave their AP open for anyone's use. Sorry, but the same thing happens to people who do not know how to set up authentication on their website and put their private documents there. In other words, at some point, you have to know what you are doing, or ask someone who does.
Finally, there will be some more ignorant people that will say - oh, but all websites are meant to be public, and all APs are meant to be private. Of course, that's wrong - there are countless number of websites that keep use and information for certain members and/or owners only (how about this one you are reading right now), and countless number of APs that are used for public access.
Paradox.
Or try 4GB USB flash drive for only $791.
I see what you are saying but journaling does protect you from most of these. You are saying what happens in cases where it doesn't. In that case, at least in my experience, reiserfsck has worked several times on a dying HD. But don't take this as a general theory, for all I know you are right and ext2 fsck is better at what it does.
FUD.
mp3.com (when it was at its peak), half of SourceForge.net, and many others do not agree with this your statement. ReiserFS is mature. You could argue this with Reiser4.
Agreed.
The above is a variation of MS propaganda against OSS; taking shots at OSS while pretending to answer a "question," failing to distinguish that they are comparing their license for a specification vs open source licenses for actual programs.
Anyway, I read most of the license and the sections 2.1 and 2.2 seem incompatible with most open source licenses that I am aware of. Why? Because both the patent and source code distribution license grants are explicitly stated as:
IANAL, but to me this means that if you are a recipient of a program under this license (from a party who accepted this license), you have no right to redistribute the source code unless you sign a separate license with Microsoft. This, in turn, means that the source code distribution license is held hostage by Microsoft - i.e. they may, at any time, change the terms or discontinue this license offer and no new developers (who have not agreed to the original license) would be able to redistribute the source of the existing open source programs implementing the specification.
Once this becomes popular, as Microsoft seems to hope, they may even (or at least have an option to) say - sorry, but we are no longer offering the "source code distribution" option with our new licensees, so sorry, really.
So, at the end, again they hope, everyone would have granted their patent licenses to MS, and MS would be in charge of the terms for the source code distribution.
This license is not compatible with OSS.
If ReiserFS "breaks" it replays the affected transactions, it does not need to fsck. If your drive is bad, or your installation broken, then it's unsafe with *any* filesystem, not just ReiserFS.
No, but FUD is one thing to keep in mind when reading posts like these, talking about some "history" and facts and things like that.
I don't "want to" switch. I did that few years ago.