Outside of Unix and Unix-like systems, desktop application software is almost always distributed in a binary-only format. Commercial vendors can't just market a copy of WidgetMaker for Linux -- they need to have WidgetMaker for Linux/386 (which would probably be named "WidgetMaker for RedHat" or whatever the leading x86 distro is at the time), WidgetMaker for Linux/PPC, and so forth.
Given that maybe 95% of the desktop market runs on x86-compatible processors anyway, I really don't think the extra ~1% share Linux could enjoy from also being able to run on PPC, Alpha, Dreamcast, etc. has any significance.
db, if you're getting modded down, it's because you're looking at the issue from a restricted perspective, not because you're making sense.
I don't think any reasonable person is on a crusade to be able to view double-fisting-xxx.jpg on an Internet terminal at the public library. The question is, how do you define what is pornogrpahy and what isn't, and just as importantly, who decides?
My local public library has a book on the shelf full of ancient woodcuttings depicting people in flagrante. There's also pages and pages of explicit sexual fantasy, from The Story of O to Nancy Friday's collections to the shelf of Harlequin paperbacks. By their presence in the library, those print materials have been affirmed as acceptable. But with internet filtering, those same materials in digital form could end up being censored.
In short: of COURSE jerking off at the library should not be allowed. But does Congress have the right to prevent us from even looking at a picture of an exposed breast? The court decision states that they have the right to draw a line in the sand, but not where that line must be.
That would only work if there was a monopoly on image editing applications. Otherwise, if one company tried to pocket the savings, another would undercut that company and take all its customers.
And this is why Adobe went out of business the second that MacGimp was released!
It just ensures the powerfull and rich people can't bash and blaim poor people, without giving them a chance to defend themselve. Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
Where did you get the idea that journalists are "powerfull and rich"? Do you have any idea what the average reporter's salary is?
Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
Here in the US it's stated explicitly that freedom of the press shall NOT be abridged. What you are advocating is exactly the opposite.
Huh? please tell me how simply publishing your file format for your new word processor would hurt you and make it difficult for you...
It's not obvious? If I tell the world how my word processing file format works, then someone else is free to come along and write a BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with mine. The users benefit, yeah, but I go out of business.
One thing about corporations that you may not understand yet, is that they don't like to go out of business. An environment of complete openness and intercompatibility is antithetical to that objective.
I think that if a company or companies require reliance on some software, there should be an assurance that the software is standardized.
I think if the software isn't standardized in such a scenario, the company or companies should simply not buy the damn software.
Market pressures alone will take care of the 'problem' of closed file formats, which really aren't a problem. Imposing government restrictions will surely make things worse rather than better.
I can see where a more efficient directory structure might be helpful, but... will they continue to sacrifice file access speed for file search speed?
Exactly my concern.
I don't need to have the computer FIND my files. I put them in a logical place, so I know where to find them the next time I need them.
I suppose fast file finds are useful if you're one of those people that saves everything into whatever the default folder in the Save dialog is, and you've got a 'My Documents' folder with 10,000 incomprehensibly-named files in it. But people who take the time themselves to establish a structured and logical storage heirarchy won't see much benefit.
Slammer exploits a buffer overflow in the sql server "named instance" resolution mechanism. It has nothing to do with the storage/querying/indexing/etc of relational data.
Do you trust Microsoft to strip down the MS SQL codebase to the barest essentials needed for WinFS operation?
They can't unbundle the GUI from the XP kernel, nor the web browser from the OS...
and how long do you suppose till some kid with a grudge sets up a completely obscure OS, sets up a honey pot just begging to get nuked by this new technology, captures the packets, decyphers it, and takes down anyone he has a grudge with?
Why does he need to reverse-engineer the nuketool? All he needs to do is write a little tune and register the copyright on it, then he'll be allowed to wreak havoc on whomever he wants with Hatch's full blessing.
I mean, it's not like huge corporations are the only entities that hold copyrights, is it?
I've always wondered why it is legal for a company to contribute towards a campaign. What else can it be construed as except a bribe for better business conditions?
A donation on behalf of the men and women that work for the company? Their personal welfare is somewhat related to the corporation's welfare: no company, no job.
You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them.
This statement is not as idiotic as some posters are interpreting it as being.
It's basically saying that the onus is on the customer if they wish to opt out of operating certain features. Let's say the service pack contains an "automatic windows update" service that runs once a night and automatically downloads and installs the latest system patches.
By installing the service pack, you're under no obligation to run that service. You can take it out of the list of active services if you want. What you CAN'T do, the line of thinking goes, is leave it running and then sue Microsoft on the grounds that you don't want it to be running. It's you job to hit the off switch, not theirs.
(IANAL and who knows whether such a EULA is enforceable anyway)
Bullshit. A vote that goes into a cash register is just as powerful as one that goes into a ballot box.
Microsoft does not want to control the world. They just want to make money. Controlling the world is one strategy that would allow them to keep making money yes, but that doesn't change the company's core reason for existing.
The story linked to is inaccurate. Who wrote it anyway, Jayson Blair?
The truth of the matter is that IBM patented ones, and Microsoft patented zeroes. The reason we're able to use them in combination is due to the collaborative work between the two companies in the 1980's on MS-DOS/PC-DOS and early versions of OS/2.
You get hit head-on by a car going almost twice your speed, you're going to be knocked backwards. There's no way your velocity will jump UP to 95 when you were going 55 previously -- you will go from 55 mph to 0 mph very quickly, and then into the negative numbers.
They'll read the ADR and see you were going 55 mph one second before the collision and -15 mph one second after, and it will be obvious who was at fault.
Also, in your fantasy world people don't have trials when they're accused of committing a crime anymore? What the hell.
For an example, google for United Fruit and Guatemala. It's that sort of shit that caused 9/11 and continues to cause widespread hatred of America.
Funny, I could have sworn the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, not Guatemalan. If I didn't know better, I would think you were trolling.
And do you honestly think corporations with ties to countries other than the United States don't do this same shit? Greed knows no national boundaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Your bang/buck calculations are incorrect.
C64 / $0 = divide-by-zero exception
Ever notice that most of those people who are in power are ex-lawyers?
I'm assuming by 'people in power', you mean the government. A government's job is to create, enforce, and interpret LAWS.
Do you see an affinity between the two lines of work there? No? Look closer.
Ever notice that contract language has grown increasingly more complicated over the years, as a means of ensuring lawyer income?
No, I haven't. Can you cite examples?
Ever notice that judges are allowing more and more of these cases, as a means to ensure their continued employment?
Yes, because without frivolous lawsuits, the courts would be so empty that all the judges and lawyers would have to be laid off.
Have you SEEN the backlog that the courts are facing these days? Even legitimate criminal cases alone are enough to tax the judicial system.
It's the slow death of a society, crushed by the weight of a useless population of lawyers who can only feed off the harm they cause to others.
Sorry to invoke Godwin's law so soon, but Hitler claimed pretty much the same thing about Jews.
Portability is a non-issue in the desktop market.
Outside of Unix and Unix-like systems, desktop application software is almost always distributed in a binary-only format. Commercial vendors can't just market a copy of WidgetMaker for Linux -- they need to have WidgetMaker for Linux/386 (which would probably be named "WidgetMaker for RedHat" or whatever the leading x86 distro is at the time), WidgetMaker for Linux/PPC, and so forth.
Given that maybe 95% of the desktop market runs on x86-compatible processors anyway, I really don't think the extra ~1% share Linux could enjoy from also being able to run on PPC, Alpha, Dreamcast, etc. has any significance.
Ah, but workstations and desktops are not the same.
(It's mostly an issue of semantics... whatever)
db, if you're getting modded down, it's because you're looking at the issue from a restricted perspective, not because you're making sense.
I don't think any reasonable person is on a crusade to be able to view double-fisting-xxx.jpg on an Internet terminal at the public library. The question is, how do you define what is pornogrpahy and what isn't, and just as importantly, who decides?
My local public library has a book on the shelf full of ancient woodcuttings depicting people in flagrante. There's also pages and pages of explicit sexual fantasy, from The Story of O to Nancy Friday's collections to the shelf of Harlequin paperbacks. By their presence in the library, those print materials have been affirmed as acceptable. But with internet filtering, those same materials in digital form could end up being censored.
In short: of COURSE jerking off at the library should not be allowed. But does Congress have the right to prevent us from even looking at a picture of an exposed breast? The court decision states that they have the right to draw a line in the sand, but not where that line must be.
they have every right to provide no internet access at all if they want, so why can't they limit access if they're good enough to provide it?
But the law doesn't say libraries CAN limit access if they provide it. It says they MUST.
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first GNU project to die do to the current economic system we find ourselfs in.
When was the last time you took a stroll through the decayed ghettos of Sourceforge?
GNU projects die all the time. This one in particular is no more attributable to the current tech industry climate than any other.
That would only work if there was a monopoly on image editing applications. Otherwise, if one company tried to pocket the savings, another would undercut that company and take all its customers.
And this is why Adobe went out of business the second that MacGimp was released!
CNBC will initiate a reverse class action suit against all of its viewers, for viewing its valuable television programs without paying.
Given CNBC's ratings, they'll probably lose money on the suit.
Surely the kind of person who thinks caffeine will kill them, is hardly likely to touch a genetically modified plant?
You seem to imply that people who are concerned about their caffeine intake are foolish and reactionary.
CAFFEINE IS BAD FOR YOU. ALL OF YOU. PERIOD.
Ask your doctor if you don't believe me.
Not so long ago we ate loads of fried food, fat and sugar, we smoked woodbines, we drank beer and whisky all the time and we didn't die!
And then Eve tasted the apple (damn health food) and we were cast out of the Garden...
Full, insanely high priced, commercial license or GPL or go to hell is their motto. :(
They've given you three choices where many software companies would have only given you the "go to hell" option. What are you so unhappy about?
Politicians and media in the US live in a free haven from public backlash.
Tell this to Trent Lott and Howell Raines.
It just ensures the powerfull and rich people can't bash and blaim poor people, without giving them a chance to defend themselve. Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
Where did you get the idea that journalists are "powerfull and rich"? Do you have any idea what the average reporter's salary is?
Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
Here in the US it's stated explicitly that freedom of the press shall NOT be abridged. What you are advocating is exactly the opposite.
Huh? please tell me how simply publishing your file format for your new word processor would hurt you and make it difficult for you...
It's not obvious? If I tell the world how my word processing file format works, then someone else is free to come along and write a BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with mine. The users benefit, yeah, but I go out of business.
One thing about corporations that you may not understand yet, is that they don't like to go out of business. An environment of complete openness and intercompatibility is antithetical to that objective.
I think that if a company or companies require reliance on some software, there should be an assurance that the software is standardized.
I think if the software isn't standardized in such a scenario, the company or companies should simply not buy the damn software.
Market pressures alone will take care of the 'problem' of closed file formats, which really aren't a problem. Imposing government restrictions will surely make things worse rather than better.
I can see where a more efficient directory structure might be helpful, but... will they continue to sacrifice file access speed for file search speed?
Exactly my concern.
I don't need to have the computer FIND my files. I put them in a logical place, so I know where to find them the next time I need them.
I suppose fast file finds are useful if you're one of those people that saves everything into whatever the default folder in the Save dialog is, and you've got a 'My Documents' folder with 10,000 incomprehensibly-named files in it. But people who take the time themselves to establish a structured and logical storage heirarchy won't see much benefit.
Slammer exploits a buffer overflow in the sql server "named instance" resolution mechanism. It has nothing to do with the storage/querying/indexing/etc of relational data.
Do you trust Microsoft to strip down the MS SQL codebase to the barest essentials needed for WinFS operation?
They can't unbundle the GUI from the XP kernel, nor the web browser from the OS...
and how long do you suppose till some kid with a grudge sets up a completely obscure OS, sets up a honey pot just begging to get nuked by this new technology, captures the packets, decyphers it, and takes down anyone he has a grudge with?
Why does he need to reverse-engineer the nuketool? All he needs to do is write a little tune and register the copyright on it, then he'll be allowed to wreak havoc on whomever he wants with Hatch's full blessing.
I mean, it's not like huge corporations are the only entities that hold copyrights, is it?
I've always wondered why it is legal for a company to contribute towards a campaign. What else can it be construed as except a bribe for better business conditions?
A donation on behalf of the men and women that work for the company? Their personal welfare is somewhat related to the corporation's welfare: no company, no job.
You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them.
This statement is not as idiotic as some posters are interpreting it as being.
It's basically saying that the onus is on the customer if they wish to opt out of operating certain features. Let's say the service pack contains an "automatic windows update" service that runs once a night and automatically downloads and installs the latest system patches.
By installing the service pack, you're under no obligation to run that service. You can take it out of the list of active services if you want. What you CAN'T do, the line of thinking goes, is leave it running and then sue Microsoft on the grounds that you don't want it to be running. It's you job to hit the off switch, not theirs.
(IANAL and who knows whether such a EULA is enforceable anyway)
A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.
Bullshit. A vote that goes into a cash register is just as powerful as one that goes into a ballot box.
Microsoft does not want to control the world. They just want to make money. Controlling the world is one strategy that would allow them to keep making money yes, but that doesn't change the company's core reason for existing.
The story linked to is inaccurate. Who wrote it anyway, Jayson Blair?
The truth of the matter is that IBM patented ones, and Microsoft patented zeroes. The reason we're able to use them in combination is due to the collaborative work between the two companies in the 1980's on MS-DOS/PC-DOS and early versions of OS/2.
Here, I have something that's just as useful:Enjoy!
I think you need to study your Physics some more.
You get hit head-on by a car going almost twice your speed, you're going to be knocked backwards. There's no way your velocity will jump UP to 95 when you were going 55 previously -- you will go from 55 mph to 0 mph very quickly, and then into the negative numbers.
They'll read the ADR and see you were going 55 mph one second before the collision and -15 mph one second after, and it will be obvious who was at fault.
Also, in your fantasy world people don't have trials when they're accused of committing a crime anymore? What the hell.
For an example, google for United Fruit and Guatemala. It's that sort of shit that caused 9/11 and continues to cause widespread hatred of America.
Funny, I could have sworn the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, not Guatemalan. If I didn't know better, I would think you were trolling.
And do you honestly think corporations with ties to countries other than the United States don't do this same shit? Greed knows no national boundaries.