Exactly. I don't see what the big deal is. The Free Software CMS that I use (Zope) has supported WebDAV for years now. Just because there are a huge pile of CMS-like programs that don't support this obvious feature does not mean that Free Software in general is broken. It simply means that there are some projects that have work to do.
Even farmers can benefit from a little extra advertising. For example, if your father grows clover, then he almost certainly has some bees. You would be surprised what people will pay for honeycomb, and selling a little sweet corn at retail prices doesn't hurt either.
Your father is in a commodity business with very few potential buyers. In that sort of a situation keeping prices down is paramount. However, increasingly the farmers that stay in business are those that are able to run some sort of a business on the side. I know quite a farmer that makes almost as much profit running a Pumpkin Patch, corn maze, and petting zoo near Halloween as they do farming.
First of all, thanks for the post. That was the best AC post I have seen in a long time.
I use Citrix on a daily basis, and I believe that X Windows and Linux have three distinct advantages over Citrix. The first advantage is cost. Citrix is expensive. In fact, Citrix is expensive enough that locked down fat-client PCs begin to look attractive. The second advantage of Linux and X Windows is closely related in that it directly effects the economics of thin clients. A Linux server can support quite a few more terminals per server than Citrix can. I personally have seen up to one hundred X terminals hung off of one (beefy) commodity Intel-based server. Try doing that with Citrix. The third advantage of Linux and X Windows is that Linux was designed, from the ground up, to support multiple users. Yes, this is mostly worked out in the newer Windows applications, but it isn't entirely uncommon to find Windows software that doesn't fit in the Citrix world vision.
Personally, I think that Linux is going to be the catalyst for thin clients. The price is right, a fairly comprehensive set of software is available, and the needed tools are falling into place. That being the case I think that Citrix also has a place in the thin client world. However, my guess is that it will primarily be used to run "legacy" Windows applications.
How is that different from the model most companies currently use where all files are stored on a central server?
If a departmental file server goes down, or if the email server goes down then I have a pile of folks that can't use their computers for anything but solitaire. Sun was 100% right when they said, "the network is the computer." One of the major benefits of Linux is that it saves you money in licensing costs that can be directly applied to purchasing better (or redundant) hardware.
The real advantage of thin clients, however, is that instead of hundreds of machines that need to be administered I now only have to adminster *one* machine (or two actually, because I am going to want redundant servers). Instead of babysitting rooms full of commodity x86 hardware (complete with all of the drive failures, software glitches, etc. that this implies) I now admin only a pair of identical server class machines. If a thin client breaks, I throw the thing in the trash and get a monkey to install another one. If I want to upgrade the software everyone uses I simply upgrade the server and I am done. Hardware upgrades are also ridiculously easy. Instead of filling up the landfill with used PCs, and spending time configuring new machines, I simply replace the servers and everyone gets a faster machine.
The pendulum is going to swing back in the direction of thin clients, and Linux is going to be a huge part of that shift.
Even if you are correct in your interpretation (and I don't think you are), then it would be easy for any commercial software company (or anyone with a patent) to close down any Free Software project. Heck, if the guy that owned the "method for swinging Tarzan-like on a swing" patent said my software infringed on his patent then I would probably have to shut down distribution of any free software that was claimed to infringe the patent. Even if the claims were ridiculous I could not afford to fight in court, and I certainly couldn't risk that some court with agree with him.
Software patents are bad for all small-time developers irregardless of whether they create Free Software or commercial software.
The reason that SCO is pursuing this case in the first place is that they are doomed. They rely primarily on proprietary UNIX licenses (OpenServer and Unixware) for x86 hardware to survive and anyone with half a brain is making the easy migration from SCO UNIX to Linux. In the meantime SCO has to maintain not one but two proprietary UNIXes with a development team smaller than RedHat's, and they haven't even got a version of their software that runs on Itanium or Opteron processors. Not to mention the fact that they are already losing money with no relief in sight.
In short, SCO is screwed.
However, they realized that they could alleviate some of the hurting in the short run by running a FUD campaign against Linux. If they scare enough of their current customers into thinking that Linux has intellectual property problems then they might retain some key accounts for another round of upgrades. Some investors might even believe that they have a chance of making real money with their lawsuit, and this would give SCO managers a chance to cash in some of their SCO stock while it is still worth more than the paper it is printed on. That is what this circus is all about. SCO knows they aren't going to win. Heck, they aren't even *trying* to win. The whole thing is nothing more than an elaborate con job.
RedHat and friends could countersue for damages based on their ridiculous claims, but this isn't likely to make them any money. After all, if SCO had money they wouldn't be trying this stupid stunt in the first place.
Yes, but if a large portion of the people that previously bought Oracle find they can get by with PostgreSQL then you will find that their decision does effect those of you that stick with Oracle. The people that don't need all of Oracle's neat features are effectively subsidizing the product for those of you that do. If these users are siphoned off by another product then either your prices will rise, development will slow, or Oracle will die.
That's one of the reasons that techies tend to be advocates for the tools that they know and use. After all, all of us have seen what happens to tools that fall out of favor. We don't want the technologies that we have invested our time and money in to become the next SCO.
As my boss says, "you don't need an aircraft carrier to go bass fishing, but it certainly helps if you need to land fighter jets out at sea."
Most people don't need to "land fighter jets at sea" and for those folks PostgreSQL gives you most of Oracle's neat features at a very low price. A redundant set of PostgreSQL servers can even get you Oracle-like availability at a much lower price.
Before Strawberry Shortcake my little girl was hooked on "The Care Bears Movie II," which was far worse. I really wish my wife would stop buying recycled 80's crap. On the other hand, that stuff is cheap, and my kids do seem to like it.
On the bright side, quite a few of the shows my children like are actually pretty interesting. For a while all they wanted to see was "Toy Story," "Toy Story 2," "Monster's Inc," or "Shrek," all of which I like.
Watching my two-year-old boy dance around to the music in Shrek is worth thousands of iterations of Strawberry Shortcake. He's hilarious.
As an example, after purchasing this gem of a video, my family and I took our new purchase home and sat on the couch and watched it together. My four-year-old girl loved every minute of the picture, and my two-year-old boy is easily distracted by singing and flashing lights. He seemed fairly content as well.
My wife and I also watched the show, but it wasn't nearly as bad as you would think because we spent most of the show making subtle jokes about the various characters. Think of it as do-it-yourself MST3K with even funnier movies, a hot girl, and gremlins instead of robots.
The fact of the matter is that I am quite happy with the purchase. I don't mind paying $8 for a movie that makes my little girl happy. I would mind, however, if I had to pay every time she wanted a Strawberry fix.
RMS was way ahead of the curve with that particular piece of commentary. Personally, I think that there is quite a good chance that fiction is going to move in the right direction. There are several places where I can get contemporary fiction e-books in open formats (baen.com being my favorite).
Text-books, on the other hand, are a serious concern. I am taking some university classes over the Internet and there is a serious push away from delivering the information in HTML towards delivering the information in closed formats. Universities see electronic textbooks as an easy way to make some cash, and they have a fairly captive audience.
I bought a Strawberry Shortcake video for my girl last week (just before I heard about Penny Arcade's mix-up with American Greeting), and she has watched it at least two times a day since then. One day she watch the video 5 times! If I hear one more "Have a Berry Lovely Day!" I swear there will be @#*! to pay.
Quite frankly, when I purchase a video it is only because I plan to watch it so many times that it is worth having around where I can get my mitts on it. If the entertainment industry thinks that I am going to fork out money each and every time my little girl wants to watch Strawberry Shortcake, then they have another thing coming. Even at $0.50 a viewing I have saved money by purchasing this particular movie outright, and I didn't have to sign up for an expensive cable system either.
What I like about the EFF is that they are narrowly focused on what I consider to be some of the most important issues of the day, and because they state their case primarily in technical terms they can reach politicians on both sides of the aisle. I am from a very conservative state, and my representatives are likely to be very wary of anything the ACLU has to say, but they *have* been receptive to the EFF.
How can I tell? My representative in Congress mentioned the EFF on the radio.
As for taxes, I consider some level of taxation a fee for living in a civilized country. The taxes in the U.S. are too high, and they are certainly used to fund some things that I don't like, but this *is* a republic, and I had my share of a say in how our tax laws and spending bills were set up. I am a firm believer in the rule of law, and that means paying taxes. However, it doesn't mean that I have to foot the bill for organizations that are lobbying for measures that I don't approve of. The ACLU has done some good work, but they have also fowarded causes that I am opposed to, so they don't get my money.
Exactly, Microsoft is a mature company that is not likely to experience the astronomical growth that they have had in the past. There's nothing wrong with that, Microsoft makes a big fat pile of money.
Unfortunately, Microsoft employees aren't really focused on Microsoft's business, but rather they are focused on the MSFT stock price. You see, a great deal of their personal wealth is wrapped up Microsoft stock, and they want to see that stock go up. To Microsoft management and employees the idea that Microsoft is not a growth company is the highest form of blasphemy. You see, their Price/Earnings ratio still has them pegged as a growth company. If the market decides that Microsoft has stopped growing, then their stock price will drop so that their P/E ratio is much closer to 10.
Microsoft could kill Linux tomorrow simply by dropping their prices. Microsoft has profit margin to give. However, this would almost certainly trigger a market realization that Microsoft is done growing. To most Microsofties this would be the kiss of death for their own personal finances, and it would put a serious crimp in Microsoft's business plan. After all, Microsoft makes a great deal of money investing in their own stock, and they also use MSFT stock as a primary motivator for their employees.
The problem with the ACLU is that they are also mixed up in a whole pile of other issues. I agree nearly 100% with the EFF, while I *disagree* quite strenuously with the ACLU on some issues.
Call me crazy, but I am not willing to fund and organization that may use my funds for causes that I find reprehensible.
Exactly. If you only put the most wanted videos on your list you might not see any this month (as you are waiting for your score to go down), but you will see them all next month:).
Or you could just cancel your Netflix subscription and pop off to your local video rental place.
That assumes that SCO has a case, which it doesn't. SCOldera can afford to act like dopes at this point because this tactic is essentially the mother of all Hail Mary passes. Their only hope is to act like they really believe they have a case and hope that the judge is mesmerized by their handwaving and their Jedi mind tricks.
It also assumes that Microsoft wants to get in an intellectual property wrestling match with IBM (who has the world's largest arsenal of patents), which they don't. Microsoft might use its arsenal of patents against Free Software eventually, but they aren't going to target Big Blue.
The simple solution to this is to A) hold on to your existing movies for a while so that you will get bumped up the list, or B) rent from someone else.
Here's a little hint. Netflix offers the promise of "unlimited" movies for a set price per month, but they don't promise that those movies will be the ones that you actually want to see. Like any business Netflix then takes care of the customers that actually make them money (ie. the ones that only request a very limited amount of movies per month), and they actively try to discourage users that lose them money.
SR-1a has been available for *years*. How much testing do you think an office suite needs? The real lesson is to avoid programs that anti-piracy measures built in. Now, try telling that to management.
Of course I don't want my family thrown in jail for stealing copyrighted material. I don't want them thrown in jail for robbing a bank or stealing cars either. Stealing copyrighted material is just as illegal as these acts, the only reason that you feel differently is that you probably have thousands of dollars worth of stolen MP3s on your hard drive. Your arguments amount to trying justify an action that you know is wrong.
I am not talking about imprisoning half the planet. I am simply talking about targetting the most prolific distributors (who essentially have crossed into the criminal fringe) and trying them. The "normal folk" will get the picture.
As far as trading music, there are plenty of bands that actually encourage you to share their music with others. Many of them are even very very good. I think that in the long run file sharing is going to wreck the music industry, but that isn't going to happen as long as the music that gets traded belongs to members of the RIAA. So the solution is simple. If you really want to trade music, find a copyright holder that doesn't mind.
So keep your hands out of my pocket. If I want to purchase music, I will, but I am not paying for your music.
This particular bug is triggered by the date. In other words, the testing procedure would have had to include moving the clock forward past a certain "magical" date.
Personally, I think that this sort of testing should be done by Microsoft. As far as I am concerned that's why you are paying hundreds of dollars a seat for their software. If this bug was triggered by the existence of some third party software then I could maybe see your point, but this is a simple bug in MS Office. The fact of the matter is that after a certain date certain versions of Office 2000 try to register themselves and fail (because Microsoft shipped a broken wizard).
I am perfectly happy with the content that I can legally download right now. Why in the world should I have to pay a fee so that the rest of you can get your N-Sync fix?
The solution to the current intellectual property problem is simple. The copyright holders should target abusers and prosecute the hell out of them. If people are faced with the prospect of being prosecuted for distributing copyrighted works illegally then the current problems will clear themselves up.
More importantly, prosecuting lawbreakers would make the copyright holders happy without making filesharing illegal. There are plenty of folks that are more than happy to have you download their work. This content would be a lot more popular if trading Eminem albums was likely to get you thrown in jail.
Yes, leaks occur. However, if your enemies get their research by stealing it from you, then you are guaranteed to A) have the technology first, and B) understand it better.
That's a good sight better than a sharp stick in the eye.
The real difference is that "Linux" isn't a publicly traded company like Microsoft. Even if Linux does no more than halt Microsoft's earnings growth then MSFT is in for some serious problems. Microsoft currently has a very high Price/Earnings ratio. If Wall Street were to believe that Microsoft was no longer going to grow they would lose a great deal of their current market value.
Microsoft the company would still be packing billions away in cash, but Microsoft investors would be losing their shirts.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately IBM isn't very likely to want to support OpenSSH and VNC. They will probably want to sell you some of their support tools.
Exactly. I don't see what the big deal is. The Free Software CMS that I use (Zope) has supported WebDAV for years now. Just because there are a huge pile of CMS-like programs that don't support this obvious feature does not mean that Free Software in general is broken. It simply means that there are some projects that have work to do.
Even farmers can benefit from a little extra advertising. For example, if your father grows clover, then he almost certainly has some bees. You would be surprised what people will pay for honeycomb, and selling a little sweet corn at retail prices doesn't hurt either.
Your father is in a commodity business with very few potential buyers. In that sort of a situation keeping prices down is paramount. However, increasingly the farmers that stay in business are those that are able to run some sort of a business on the side. I know quite a farmer that makes almost as much profit running a Pumpkin Patch, corn maze, and petting zoo near Halloween as they do farming.
First of all, thanks for the post. That was the best AC post I have seen in a long time.
I use Citrix on a daily basis, and I believe that X Windows and Linux have three distinct advantages over Citrix. The first advantage is cost. Citrix is expensive. In fact, Citrix is expensive enough that locked down fat-client PCs begin to look attractive. The second advantage of Linux and X Windows is closely related in that it directly effects the economics of thin clients. A Linux server can support quite a few more terminals per server than Citrix can. I personally have seen up to one hundred X terminals hung off of one (beefy) commodity Intel-based server. Try doing that with Citrix. The third advantage of Linux and X Windows is that Linux was designed, from the ground up, to support multiple users. Yes, this is mostly worked out in the newer Windows applications, but it isn't entirely uncommon to find Windows software that doesn't fit in the Citrix world vision.
Personally, I think that Linux is going to be the catalyst for thin clients. The price is right, a fairly comprehensive set of software is available, and the needed tools are falling into place. That being the case I think that Citrix also has a place in the thin client world. However, my guess is that it will primarily be used to run "legacy" Windows applications.
How is that different from the model most companies currently use where all files are stored on a central server?
If a departmental file server goes down, or if the email server goes down then I have a pile of folks that can't use their computers for anything but solitaire. Sun was 100% right when they said, "the network is the computer." One of the major benefits of Linux is that it saves you money in licensing costs that can be directly applied to purchasing better (or redundant) hardware.
The real advantage of thin clients, however, is that instead of hundreds of machines that need to be administered I now only have to adminster *one* machine (or two actually, because I am going to want redundant servers). Instead of babysitting rooms full of commodity x86 hardware (complete with all of the drive failures, software glitches, etc. that this implies) I now admin only a pair of identical server class machines. If a thin client breaks, I throw the thing in the trash and get a monkey to install another one. If I want to upgrade the software everyone uses I simply upgrade the server and I am done. Hardware upgrades are also ridiculously easy. Instead of filling up the landfill with used PCs, and spending time configuring new machines, I simply replace the servers and everyone gets a faster machine.
The pendulum is going to swing back in the direction of thin clients, and Linux is going to be a huge part of that shift.
Even if you are correct in your interpretation (and I don't think you are), then it would be easy for any commercial software company (or anyone with a patent) to close down any Free Software project. Heck, if the guy that owned the "method for swinging Tarzan-like on a swing" patent said my software infringed on his patent then I would probably have to shut down distribution of any free software that was claimed to infringe the patent. Even if the claims were ridiculous I could not afford to fight in court, and I certainly couldn't risk that some court with agree with him.
Software patents are bad for all small-time developers irregardless of whether they create Free Software or commercial software.
The reason that SCO is pursuing this case in the first place is that they are doomed. They rely primarily on proprietary UNIX licenses (OpenServer and Unixware) for x86 hardware to survive and anyone with half a brain is making the easy migration from SCO UNIX to Linux. In the meantime SCO has to maintain not one but two proprietary UNIXes with a development team smaller than RedHat's, and they haven't even got a version of their software that runs on Itanium or Opteron processors. Not to mention the fact that they are already losing money with no relief in sight.
In short, SCO is screwed.
However, they realized that they could alleviate some of the hurting in the short run by running a FUD campaign against Linux. If they scare enough of their current customers into thinking that Linux has intellectual property problems then they might retain some key accounts for another round of upgrades. Some investors might even believe that they have a chance of making real money with their lawsuit, and this would give SCO managers a chance to cash in some of their SCO stock while it is still worth more than the paper it is printed on. That is what this circus is all about. SCO knows they aren't going to win. Heck, they aren't even *trying* to win. The whole thing is nothing more than an elaborate con job.
RedHat and friends could countersue for damages based on their ridiculous claims, but this isn't likely to make them any money. After all, if SCO had money they wouldn't be trying this stupid stunt in the first place.
Yes, but if a large portion of the people that previously bought Oracle find they can get by with PostgreSQL then you will find that their decision does effect those of you that stick with Oracle. The people that don't need all of Oracle's neat features are effectively subsidizing the product for those of you that do. If these users are siphoned off by another product then either your prices will rise, development will slow, or Oracle will die.
That's one of the reasons that techies tend to be advocates for the tools that they know and use. After all, all of us have seen what happens to tools that fall out of favor. We don't want the technologies that we have invested our time and money in to become the next SCO.
As my boss says, "you don't need an aircraft carrier to go bass fishing, but it certainly helps if you need to land fighter jets out at sea."
Most people don't need to "land fighter jets at sea" and for those folks PostgreSQL gives you most of Oracle's neat features at a very low price. A redundant set of PostgreSQL servers can even get you Oracle-like availability at a much lower price.
Before Strawberry Shortcake my little girl was hooked on "The Care Bears Movie II," which was far worse. I really wish my wife would stop buying recycled 80's crap. On the other hand, that stuff is cheap, and my kids do seem to like it.
On the bright side, quite a few of the shows my children like are actually pretty interesting. For a while all they wanted to see was "Toy Story," "Toy Story 2," "Monster's Inc," or "Shrek," all of which I like.
Watching my two-year-old boy dance around to the music in Shrek is worth thousands of iterations of Strawberry Shortcake. He's hilarious.
Fah, kids are fun. Really.
As an example, after purchasing this gem of a video, my family and I took our new purchase home and sat on the couch and watched it together. My four-year-old girl loved every minute of the picture, and my two-year-old boy is easily distracted by singing and flashing lights. He seemed fairly content as well.
My wife and I also watched the show, but it wasn't nearly as bad as you would think because we spent most of the show making subtle jokes about the various characters. Think of it as do-it-yourself MST3K with even funnier movies, a hot girl, and gremlins instead of robots.
The fact of the matter is that I am quite happy with the purchase. I don't mind paying $8 for a movie that makes my little girl happy. I would mind, however, if I had to pay every time she wanted a Strawberry fix.
RMS was way ahead of the curve with that particular piece of commentary. Personally, I think that there is quite a good chance that fiction is going to move in the right direction. There are several places where I can get contemporary fiction e-books in open formats (baen.com being my favorite).
Text-books, on the other hand, are a serious concern. I am taking some university classes over the Internet and there is a serious push away from delivering the information in HTML towards delivering the information in closed formats. Universities see electronic textbooks as an easy way to make some cash, and they have a fairly captive audience.
I bought a Strawberry Shortcake video for my girl last week (just before I heard about Penny Arcade's mix-up with American Greeting), and she has watched it at least two times a day since then. One day she watch the video 5 times! If I hear one more "Have a Berry Lovely Day!" I swear there will be @#*! to pay.
Quite frankly, when I purchase a video it is only because I plan to watch it so many times that it is worth having around where I can get my mitts on it. If the entertainment industry thinks that I am going to fork out money each and every time my little girl wants to watch Strawberry Shortcake, then they have another thing coming. Even at $0.50 a viewing I have saved money by purchasing this particular movie outright, and I didn't have to sign up for an expensive cable system either.
I think I will go read a book now.
What I like about the EFF is that they are narrowly focused on what I consider to be some of the most important issues of the day, and because they state their case primarily in technical terms they can reach politicians on both sides of the aisle. I am from a very conservative state, and my representatives are likely to be very wary of anything the ACLU has to say, but they *have* been receptive to the EFF.
How can I tell? My representative in Congress mentioned the EFF on the radio.
As for taxes, I consider some level of taxation a fee for living in a civilized country. The taxes in the U.S. are too high, and they are certainly used to fund some things that I don't like, but this *is* a republic, and I had my share of a say in how our tax laws and spending bills were set up. I am a firm believer in the rule of law, and that means paying taxes. However, it doesn't mean that I have to foot the bill for organizations that are lobbying for measures that I don't approve of. The ACLU has done some good work, but they have also fowarded causes that I am opposed to, so they don't get my money.
Exactly, Microsoft is a mature company that is not likely to experience the astronomical growth that they have had in the past. There's nothing wrong with that, Microsoft makes a big fat pile of money.
Unfortunately, Microsoft employees aren't really focused on Microsoft's business, but rather they are focused on the MSFT stock price. You see, a great deal of their personal wealth is wrapped up Microsoft stock, and they want to see that stock go up. To Microsoft management and employees the idea that Microsoft is not a growth company is the highest form of blasphemy. You see, their Price/Earnings ratio still has them pegged as a growth company. If the market decides that Microsoft has stopped growing, then their stock price will drop so that their P/E ratio is much closer to 10.
Microsoft could kill Linux tomorrow simply by dropping their prices. Microsoft has profit margin to give. However, this would almost certainly trigger a market realization that Microsoft is done growing. To most Microsofties this would be the kiss of death for their own personal finances, and it would put a serious crimp in Microsoft's business plan. After all, Microsoft makes a great deal of money investing in their own stock, and they also use MSFT stock as a primary motivator for their employees.
The problem with the ACLU is that they are also mixed up in a whole pile of other issues. I agree nearly 100% with the EFF, while I *disagree* quite strenuously with the ACLU on some issues.
Call me crazy, but I am not willing to fund and organization that may use my funds for causes that I find reprehensible.
Exactly. If you only put the most wanted videos on your list you might not see any this month (as you are waiting for your score to go down), but you will see them all next month :).
Or you could just cancel your Netflix subscription and pop off to your local video rental place.
That assumes that SCO has a case, which it doesn't. SCOldera can afford to act like dopes at this point because this tactic is essentially the mother of all Hail Mary passes. Their only hope is to act like they really believe they have a case and hope that the judge is mesmerized by their handwaving and their Jedi mind tricks.
It also assumes that Microsoft wants to get in an intellectual property wrestling match with IBM (who has the world's largest arsenal of patents), which they don't. Microsoft might use its arsenal of patents against Free Software eventually, but they aren't going to target Big Blue.
The simple solution to this is to A) hold on to your existing movies for a while so that you will get bumped up the list, or B) rent from someone else.
Here's a little hint. Netflix offers the promise of "unlimited" movies for a set price per month, but they don't promise that those movies will be the ones that you actually want to see. Like any business Netflix then takes care of the customers that actually make them money (ie. the ones that only request a very limited amount of movies per month), and they actively try to discourage users that lose them money.
SR-1a has been available for *years*. How much testing do you think an office suite needs? The real lesson is to avoid programs that anti-piracy measures built in. Now, try telling that to management.
Of course I don't want my family thrown in jail for stealing copyrighted material. I don't want them thrown in jail for robbing a bank or stealing cars either. Stealing copyrighted material is just as illegal as these acts, the only reason that you feel differently is that you probably have thousands of dollars worth of stolen MP3s on your hard drive. Your arguments amount to trying justify an action that you know is wrong.
I am not talking about imprisoning half the planet. I am simply talking about targetting the most prolific distributors (who essentially have crossed into the criminal fringe) and trying them. The "normal folk" will get the picture.
As far as trading music, there are plenty of bands that actually encourage you to share their music with others. Many of them are even very very good. I think that in the long run file sharing is going to wreck the music industry, but that isn't going to happen as long as the music that gets traded belongs to members of the RIAA. So the solution is simple. If you really want to trade music, find a copyright holder that doesn't mind.
So keep your hands out of my pocket. If I want to purchase music, I will, but I am not paying for your music.
This particular bug is triggered by the date. In other words, the testing procedure would have had to include moving the clock forward past a certain "magical" date.
Personally, I think that this sort of testing should be done by Microsoft. As far as I am concerned that's why you are paying hundreds of dollars a seat for their software. If this bug was triggered by the existence of some third party software then I could maybe see your point, but this is a simple bug in MS Office. The fact of the matter is that after a certain date certain versions of Office 2000 try to register themselves and fail (because Microsoft shipped a broken wizard).
I am perfectly happy with the content that I can legally download right now. Why in the world should I have to pay a fee so that the rest of you can get your N-Sync fix?
The solution to the current intellectual property problem is simple. The copyright holders should target abusers and prosecute the hell out of them. If people are faced with the prospect of being prosecuted for distributing copyrighted works illegally then the current problems will clear themselves up.
More importantly, prosecuting lawbreakers would make the copyright holders happy without making filesharing illegal. There are plenty of folks that are more than happy to have you download their work. This content would be a lot more popular if trading Eminem albums was likely to get you thrown in jail.
Yes, leaks occur. However, if your enemies get their research by stealing it from you, then you are guaranteed to A) have the technology first, and B) understand it better.
That's a good sight better than a sharp stick in the eye.
The real difference is that "Linux" isn't a publicly traded company like Microsoft. Even if Linux does no more than halt Microsoft's earnings growth then MSFT is in for some serious problems. Microsoft currently has a very high Price/Earnings ratio. If Wall Street were to believe that Microsoft was no longer going to grow they would lose a great deal of their current market value.
Microsoft the company would still be packing billions away in cash, but Microsoft investors would be losing their shirts.